An email from a Conspiracy theorist, and I have no idea how [Archive] - Page 3

Unfit4Command

4th August 2007, 12:40 AM

Thanks for the info/link. So the plane didn't burn at all! Seats, safety belts, etc. were intact and scorched bodies of several airline passengers were found. Thus very easy to verify about phones in the chairs. BTW - what are the identity of these unfortunate airline passengers?

Where does it say the plane didn't burn at all?

Do you expect the quote to read, "When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their [scorched] seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him."

I think the "scorched bodies" and "charred flesh" should be enough to say the seats and everything else was burned.

I know it's hard to believe, but sometimes seats, passengers, and safety belts can survive plane crashes. Rescue workers and people involved in the cleanup effort tell us this.

"Early Friday morning, shortly before 4 a.m., Burkhammer and another firefighter, Brian Moravitz, were combing through debris near the impact site. Peering at the wreckage with their helmet lights, the two spotted an intact seat from the plane’s cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached. Then they saw two odd-shaped dark boxes, about 1.5 by 2 feet long. They’d been told the plane’s “black boxes” would in fact be bright orange, but these were charred black. The boxes had handles on one end and one was torn open. They cordoned off the area and called for an FBI agent, who in turn called for someone from the National Transportation Safety Board who confirmed the find: the black boxes from American Airlines Flight 77."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3069699/
I'm not sure what the identity of the airline passengers found still strapped to their seats is. However, there are several news stories about the identification of the passengers.

"The remains of five people killed in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon were damaged beyond identification in the massive explosion and fire after a hijacked airliner crashed into the building's west side, officials said.

Investigators have identified remains of 184 people who were aboard American Airlines Flight 77 or inside the Pentagon, including those of the five hijackers, but they say it is impossible to match what is left with the five missing people."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61202-2001Nov20?language=printer

"By contrast, identification work at the Pentagon and in Shanksville, Pa., where two other passenger jets crashed on 9/11, has been complete since early 2002.

Analysts from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington matched remains to seven crewmembers and all 33 passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville after passengers struggled with the hijackers. At the Pentagon, military medical examiners linked remains to 179 victims, including passengers aboard American Airlines Flight 77 and people working in the facility. Five people who perished at the Pentagon could not be matched to remains."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-11-sept11-remains_x.htm

"The DNA results strengthened the hypothesis that two of the terrorists were brothers, as indicated by other evidence. Two of the terrorist STR profiles aboard the AA Flight 77 gave a sibling index greater than 500. To further test the hypothesis of maternal relatedness, AFDIL sequenced the HVI and HVII regions of mtDNA for these individuals. The sequences generated did match in HVI and HVII, which is consistent with a maternal relationship between the two men."
http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div831/strbase/pub_pres/Edson2004.pdf (http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div831/strbase/pub_pres/Edson2004.pdf)

Here (http://www.911myths.com/html/personal_effects.html) are a couple stories about Personal Effects being found.
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Pentagon/Debris/10527_256.jpg

More information here (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary)

I really want you to answer this question. How is finding airline passengers still strapped to their seats evidence that the plane didn't crash there?! Did the unknown people rip out seats of the aircraft, burn the passengers and the seats, then carry them into the Pentagon without anyone noticing and set them there? Do you have any idea how sick your ideas are?
Not only are they sick, they're also not backed up by evidence, saying "they could be planted (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2828329&postcount=481)" isn't evidence.

Panoply_Prefect

4th August 2007, 12:42 AM

You are 100% right that I use the the 'pilots for truth' analysis/animation of the AA77 FDR data as submitted by NTSB

It. Is. Not. The. NTSB. FDR. Analysis.

Someone, please, please, make him understand. I've tried so long.

Panoply_Prefect

4th August 2007, 01:06 AM

Posted quite a few good links

Let me just add:

Sometime today, Frank Jensen will spread his wife's ashes in Monterey Bay, where the San Martin couple spent countless joyful hours scuba diving together.

(...)

Two years ago today, Suzanne Calley died aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when terrorists hijacked the plane and sent it crashing into the Pentagon. She was homeward bound from a business trip and planned to celebrate her and Jensen's 20th anniversary the next day. Her 43rd birthday would have been just a few days later. Rescue crews were able to pull Calley's body from Flight 77's wreckage. Now, after a long period of hesitation, Jensen plans to let the Pacific waters take her cremated remains.

http://gilroydispatch.com/news/contentview.asp?c=73724

Heiwa

4th August 2007, 02:03 AM

Where does it say the plane didn't burn at all?

Do you expect the quote to read, "When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their [scorched] seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him."

I think the "scorched bodies" and "charred flesh" should be enough to say the seats and everything else was burned.

I know it's hard to believe, but sometimes seats, passengers, and safety belts can survive plane crashes. Rescue workers and people involved in the cleanup effort tell us this.

"Early Friday morning, shortly before 4 a.m., Burkhammer and another firefighter, Brian Moravitz, were combing through debris near the impact site. Peering at the wreckage with their helmet lights, the two spotted an intact seat from the plane’s cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached. Then they saw two odd-shaped dark boxes, about 1.5 by 2 feet long. They’d been told the plane’s “black boxes” would in fact be bright orange, but these were charred black. The boxes had handles on one end and one was torn open. They cordoned off the area and called for an FBI agent, who in turn called for someone from the National Transportation Safety Board who confirmed the find: the black boxes from American Airlines Flight 77."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3069699/
I'm not sure what the identity of the airline passengers found still strapped to their seats is. However, there are several news stories about the identification of the passengers.

"The remains of five people killed in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon were damaged beyond identification in the massive explosion and fire after a hijacked airliner crashed into the building's west side, officials said.

Investigators have identified remains of 184 people who were aboard American Airlines Flight 77 or inside the Pentagon, including those of the five hijackers, but they say it is impossible to match what is left with the five missing people."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61202-2001Nov20?language=printer

"By contrast, identification work at the Pentagon and in Shanksville, Pa., where two other passenger jets crashed on 9/11, has been complete since early 2002.

Analysts from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington matched remains to seven crewmembers and all 33 passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville after passengers struggled with the hijackers. At the Pentagon, military medical examiners linked remains to 179 victims, including passengers aboard American Airlines Flight 77 and people working in the facility. Five people who perished at the Pentagon could not be matched to remains."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-11-sept11-remains_x.htm

"The DNA results strengthened the hypothesis that two of the terrorists were brothers, as indicated by other evidence. Two of the terrorist STR profiles aboard the AA Flight 77 gave a sibling index greater than 500. To further test the hypothesis of maternal relatedness, AFDIL sequenced the HVI and HVII regions of mtDNA for these individuals. The sequences generated did match in HVI and HVII, which is consistent with a maternal relationship between the two men."
http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div831/strbase/pub_pres/Edson2004.pdf (http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div831/strbase/pub_pres/Edson2004.pdf)

Here (http://www.911myths.com/html/personal_effects.html) are a couple stories about Personal Effects being found.
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Pentagon/Debris/10527_256.jpg

More information here (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary)

I really want you to answer this question. How is finding airline passengers still strapped to their seats evidence that the plane didn't crash there?! Did the unknown people rip out seats of the aircraft, burn the passengers and the seats, then carry them into the Pentagon without anyone noticing and set them there? Do you have any idea how sick your ideas are?
Not only are they sick, they're also not backed up by evidence, saying "they could be planted (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2828329&postcount=481)" isn't evidence.

Strange stories. Fire fighters combing through debris! It is not their job! Intact seat from the cockpit with a chunk of floor still attached! Amazing. Two black boxes side by side! I thought the FDR was located in the aft end of the plane and the CVR in the front. Area being fenced off. Hm!

Amazingly no seats or safety belts were recovered at Shanksville but at Pentagon yes. From the cock pit. That had gone through a reinforced wall.

I think the authorities have still a lot to explain; it is the whole idea of democracy. The citizens hold the authorities responsible and the latter must clarify all inconsistencies. Not by strange stories in the media.

beachnut

4th August 2007, 02:12 AM

You have got your history mixed up! In Germany 1933 it was the government that deceived the population, e.g. by destroying the Reichstag building. Those good patriots who were not deceived ended up in concentration camps and/or were murdered.
No, I am right. The truth movement is made of lies, just like the NAZIs lied for political ends, so does 9/11 truth. You have fallen for lies, you visit web sites like p4t and are fooled by people who sell lies and label it 9/11 truth. Just like NAZIs. You are not able to identify lies and you do not what to believe what happen on 9/11 so you go to the liars of 9/11 truth. You have joined the liars and you repeat the lies of 9/11 truth without even checking, you just believe it. No facts, no evidence you are falling for lies. You are unable to use your mind in logical and rational manner to see te lies of 9/11 truth.

Keep up the good work and spread those lies. No facts, just lies; 9/11 truth. P4t is total fiction.

Unfit4Command

4th August 2007, 02:24 AM

Strange stories. Fire fighters combing through debris! It is not their job!

Were fire fighters not involved in such work at Ground Zero?

Intact seat from the cockpit with a chunk of floor still attached! Amazing.

Why is that amazing? Was it planted?!

Two black boxes side by side! I thought the FDR was located in the aft end of the plane and the CVR in the front. Area being fenced off. Hm!

Wrong.
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Other%20Stuff/black-box-location.jpg

And it never said they were found "side by side" just in the same area. Why shouldn't that area be cordoned off when a piece of evidence like the black boxes are found?

Amazingly no seats or safety belts were recovered at Shanksville but at Pentagon yes. From the cock pit. That had gone through a reinforced wall.

You're acting like ONLY the seat went through the reinforced wall. While ignoring the massive amount of plane that's in front of the seats that could have possibly played a part in breaking the hole.

Also, at least one safety belt was recovered from Shanksville, along with several other chunks of debris. ALL PLANTED?! HM!?

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Shanksville/seatbelt.jpg

I think the authorities have still a lot to explain; it is the whole idea of democracy. The citizens hold the authorities responsible and the latter must clarify all inconsistencies. Not by strange stories in the media.

I'm going to ask the same questions I asked in the previous post since you failed to address ANY of them.

I really want you to answer this question. How is finding airline passengers still strapped to their seats evidence that the plane didn't crash there?! Did the unknown people rip out seats of the aircraft, burn the passengers and the seats, then carry them into the Pentagon without anyone noticing and set them there? Do you have any idea how sick your ideas are?
Not only are they sick, they're also not backed up by evidence, saying "they could be planted (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2828329&postcount=481)" isn't evidence.

One more question, WHAT CAUSED THE DAMAGE TO THE PENTAGON WHILE LEAVING BEHIND PASSENGER REMAINS, DNA, PERSONAL EFFECTS, TONS OF AIRLINER DEBRIS?

beachnut

4th August 2007, 02:36 AM

You are 100% right that I use the the 'pilots for truth' analysis/animation of the AA77 FDR data as submitted by NTSB as base for my observations and to me it looks pretty convincing. Why would they falsify that? For selling DVDs? But you can see the whole thing on their web site. They seem pretty serious in my opinion. Many professional pilots suggest it is impossible for an unexperienced pilot to make the last 360° turn while descending and then flying close to the ground the last 500 yards cutting lamp posts hitting Pentagon at an angle, etc. Why would a suicide pilot or kamikaze do this and not hit straight? Questions like that haunts me.
Pilots for truth is a total fiction site. You have been fooled by people who are selling DVDs for 14.99, 15.99.

The NTSB animation is a working copy. The words added to the NTSB animation are fiction. If you are a pilot they would be funny if the topic was not about my fellow soldiers being killed and passengers being killed. You have latched on to lies from a very few pilots who make up lies about 9/11. If you tried to learn you could see this. The person at p4t is a failed pilot who now is making up stuff, and selling DVDs on 9/11 lies.

You can buy the DVDs for money. Go check it out. I would not buy it, it is packed with false information, but they have fooled you. Why?

Only the truth movement pilots say that. You could fly a plane and do the exact same thing. Go to the airport and get an introductory flight. Get some money and do something instead of reading lies and believing them. You first need to treat the junk from 9/11 truth like you are treating me. Are you happy with the lies 9/11 truth makes up. There are only a few pilots who are "nuts" enough to ignore their training and the facts on 9/11 and make up lies. There are thousands of pilots who disagree with p4t. Did you hear me, thousands of pilots who disagree with p4t. Why are you fooled by a few pilots. There are more pilots here that can tell p4t are misleading you, even you could prove them wrong if you research enough. But it takes time to learn the facts on 9/11 which you will never find from 9/11 truth.

Why would a pilot hit the Pentagon straight? Why does it matter? I am a pilot and the Pentagon was hit by 77. It is too easy to fly, go get a flight, you may get sick, you may have fun, you will not regret it either way. Go do something and stop being lazy and believing 9/11 truth. If you do not believe me, why would you believe 9/11 truth?

Please get some help from some rational people to understand 9/11 truth is just fiction.

If you flew a plane and you wanted to hit the Pentagon you would aim and hit. Go to a parking lot with your bicycle and pick a car to aim at, go toward it. Did you hit it straight on or not. Just pick any car turn and aim. The straight on thing does not make sense to be worried about. He was over a mile away and he aimed at the Pentagon, as he got closer and was doing 600 mph, he can not turn and get straight, it is impossible. He would have to go back and try again.

How old are you and why do you believe anyone about anything? It is best you do not believe anyone, and find all the facts yourself. The internet is full of liars, you have found them, and you are spewing the liars junk. You failed to find the truth, you have found liars.

GlennB

4th August 2007, 03:31 AM

Pilots for truth is a total fiction site. You have been fooled by people who are selling DVDs for 14.99, 15.99.

He is trying to be one of them, beachnut.

Check out his website
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/carnet_propositions.htm
10 Euros

Heiwa

4th August 2007, 05:23 AM

No, I am right. The truth movement is made of lies, just like the NAZIs lied for political ends, so does 9/11 truth. You have fallen for lies, you visit web sites like p4t and are fooled by people who sell lies and label it 9/11 truth. Just like NAZIs. You are not able to identify lies and you do not what to believe what happen on 9/11 so you go to the liars of 9/11 truth. You have joined the liars and you repeat the lies of 9/11 truth without even checking, you just believe it. No facts, no evidence you are falling for lies. You are unable to use your mind in logical and rational manner to see te lies of 9/11 truth.

Keep up the good work and spread those lies. No facts, just lies; 9/11 truth. P4t is total fiction.

It is OT but the CIA informed the US government that there were 949 WMD sites in Iraq, which Secretary of State Colin Powell then informed UN, etc., as a good reason to attack Iraq which was done by US against all international law. After checking the 949 sites the US authorities found ... nothing. Not one WMD! They found some persons stating that Iraq might have considered WMD and so on. Not very convincing.
Question: Are the CIA staff Nazis ... or just incompetent idiots?

Panoply_Prefect

4th August 2007, 05:42 AM

It is OT but the CIA informed the US government that there were 949 WMD sites in Iraq, which Secretary of State Colin Powell then informed UN, etc.,

And most of the West media, countries and even the UN envoy Hans Blix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blix), didn't buy into this story, now did they?

I have no idea if "the CIA" was particularly incompetent in their attempts, but I think they were under heavy pressure to produce something that weren't there. Which very, very fast proved to be something that couldn't be accomplished.

Do you ever stop to think why there weren't ever a need for a "WMD in Iraq-truther movement"? (Or, for that matter, why the US NWO evil governement didn't just plant WMD's in Iraq...)

Heiwa

4th August 2007, 09:31 AM

And most of the West media, countries and even the UN envoy Hans Blix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blix), didn't buy into this story, now did they?

I have no idea if "the CIA" was particularly incompetent in their attempts, but I think they were under heavy pressure to produce something that weren't there. Which very, very fast proved to be something that couldn't be accomplished.

Do you ever stop to think why there weren't ever a need for a "WMD in Iraq-truther movement"? (Or, for that matter, why the US NWO evil governement didn't just plant WMD's in Iraq...)

I actually asked Beachnut but the answer is wrong. CIA evidently produced false 'facts' about WMDs in Iraq at the request of their masters to suit their needs. Later same people alleges Iraq was behind 9/11 and many Americans believe that too. It seems the same happened 9/11 to FBI a little earlier. Produce something blaming OBL to suit the needs. And they did it very quickly! Finding passports, suitcases, instruction manuals, patsies, etc. And excuses why NORAD and FAA slept at their switches. Nazi style according Beachnut.

Interesting that nobody protests when Beachnut calls the whole 9/11 truth movement nazi.

twinstead

4th August 2007, 10:08 AM

Interesting that nobody protests when Beachnut calls the whole 9/11 truth movement nazi.

Hey. You people are accusing people of mass murder on the slimmest of evidence and conjecture, shoving some kind of ideological agenda down our throats, and accusing anybody who disagrees with you of being 'in on it', a mindless drone, or an idiot.

If Nazi is the worst you get called then you're ahead of the game, mmmmkay?

Unfit4Command

4th August 2007, 11:23 AM

It is OT but the CIA informed the US government that there were 949 WMD sites in Iraq, which Secretary of State Colin Powell then informed UN, etc., as a good reason to attack Iraq which was done by US against all international law. After checking the 949 sites the US authorities found ... nothing. Not one WMD! They found some persons stating that Iraq might have considered WMD and so on. Not very convincing.
Question: Are the CIA staff Nazis ... or just incompetent idiots?

Hey look, you're ignoring what I presented again. Goodbye, you're not worth my time.

Everyone, ignore this troll.

Digest

4th August 2007, 12:14 PM

No, DNA and personal effects of the passengers do not prove that the planes crashed (they could be planted). Only documented and identified wreckage parts of each plane can evidently prove that the plane in question crashed. Evident, isn't it? Any good patriot should agree!

And the obvious question is: Was NTSB actually examining an FDR originating from AA77? Somebody says the FDR was found inside Pentagon ... but can we be sure?!

Anyone else see the problem here? Would not the FDR be considered wreckage parts of said plane crash? So in essence Heiwa just admitted the planee did crash into the pentagon...or is he misleading/lying/NWO stooging himself??? :eye-poppi

CT'er confuse the crap out of me. It must be a scary world to live in.

Heiwa

4th August 2007, 02:04 PM

Also, at least one safety belt was recovered from Shanksville, along with several other chunks of debris. ALL PLANTED?! HM!?

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Shanksville/seatbelt.jpg

Please - this photo could be anything.

Heiwa

4th August 2007, 02:09 PM

Anyone else see the problem here? Would not the FDR be considered wreckage parts of said plane crash? So in essence Heiwa just admitted the planee did crash into the pentagon...or is he misleading/lying/NWO stooging himself??? :eye-poppi

CT'er confuse the crap out of me. It must be a scary world to live in.

Of course the FDR is a wreckage part but we don't know its background. Found by two fire fighters in the debris according a newspaper report with the CVR. Reliable? And then the recordings/animations show another route than 9/11 Commission report. Confusing. Completely unprofessional.

Heiwa

4th August 2007, 02:24 PM

Hey. You people are accusing people of mass murder on the slimmest of evidence and conjecture, shoving some kind of ideological agenda down our throats, and accusing anybody who disagrees with you of being 'in on it', a mindless drone, or an idiot.

If Nazi is the worst you get called then you're ahead of the game, mmmmkay?

Yes, I (people?) am accusing some gangsters of mass murder. Question is who they are. Nazis? And I am accusing nobody else of anything except maintaining that the US authorities have made a sloppy, cheap, incompetent job with the various investigations, which we (try to) discuss.

Anyway - so far nobody has convinced me that the 9/11 Commission report is correct. Of course all material evidence is secret pending some trial that will never take place and in the meantime the gangsters can destroy what evidence that remains. It seems some people are still sleeping at their switches.

T.A.M.

4th August 2007, 02:26 PM

Ok, Heiwa, what is the only way that the FBi could prove to you that their evidence is real?

Let me guess, the only way you will believe it is if you are personally invited to look at it, or if they give you their personal investigation record books that catalogue said evidence, the latter MAYBE convincing you, maybe not.

Pathetic.

TAM:)

T.A.M.

4th August 2007, 02:28 PM

Anyway - so far nobody has convinced me that the 9/11 Commission report is correct. Of course all material evidence is secret pending some trial that will never take place and in the meantime the gangsters can destroy what evidence that remains. It seems some people are still sleeping at their switches.

Given there is no way to convince you, people here have likely given up trying. Believe what you want, few if any here really care...you are beyond help.

TAM:)

funk de fino

4th August 2007, 02:29 PM

Please - this photo could be anything.

and you could be intelligent but you are not

them things below your eyebrows are eyes try using them

answer the point about how you completely and utterly made an arse of where the CVR and FDR were located on the plane

S C U M

Heiwa

4th August 2007, 02:45 PM

There are thousands of pilots who disagree with p4t. Did you hear me, thousands of pilots who disagree with p4t.

Why would a pilot hit the Pentagon straight? Why does it matter? I am a pilot and the Pentagon was hit by 77. ... If you do not believe me, why would you believe 9/11 truth?

If you flew a plane and you wanted to hit the Pentagon you would aim and hit. Go to a parking lot with your bicycle and pick a car to aim at, go toward it. Did you hit it straight on or not. Just pick any car turn and aim. The straight on thing does not make sense to be worried about. He was over a mile away and he aimed at the Pentagon, as he got closer and was doing 600 mph, he can not turn and get straight, it is impossible. He would have to go back and try again.

Thousands of pilots that disagree with p4t? Haven't heard about them. And your are one? And you know!

So the alleged hijacker pilot was trying a direct hit at Pentagon but something went wrong so he had to go back and try again!

And if we do not believe that we are nazis? Sorry, I cannot follow your reasoning.

Heiwa

4th August 2007, 02:50 PM

T.A.M.

4th August 2007, 02:54 PM

Oh really...so the FBI STANDARD PROCEDURE, in an ongoing CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, is to show their EVIDENCE to ANY INTERESTED PARTY?

Can I have some of what ever you are smoking?

Nuts

TAM:)

Unfit4Command

4th August 2007, 10:36 PM

Please - this photo could be anything.

Why do you keep ignoring my questions? I'm afraid that the burden of proof is on YOU, yet you haven't presented ANY evidence to support anything you're saying.

Are you ever going to do that?

You think everything was planted at the Pentagon, right? Present your evidence.

beachnut

4th August 2007, 10:45 PM

Thousands of pilots that disagree with p4t? Haven't heard about them. And your are one? And you know!

So the alleged hijacker pilot was trying a direct hit at Pentagon but something went wrong so he had to go back and try again!

And if we do not believe that we are nazis? Sorry, I cannot follow your reasoning.
Yes there are thousands of pilots who disagree with the conclusion that p4t are unable to make, but clearly imply. Ask one. We have many here at this forum who disagree with p4t, we have more people here than p4t have. We win by numbers. But yes, thousand of pilots disagree with the p4t. You need to ask pilots. But then you are a CT believer.

The terrorist in flight 77 made a direct hit on the Pentagon. Any hit is direct, he rolled out and made a direct course for the Pentagon and hit it. No he did not try again. I said if you want to hit a side perpendicular, and you are not lined up you have to try again.

If you are a truther, you guys act like a NAZI propaganda machine. I can explain more if you do not understand.

Heiwa

5th August 2007, 12:48 AM

Oh really...so the FBI STANDARD PROCEDURE, in an ongoing CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, is to show their EVIDENCE to ANY INTERESTED PARTY?

Can I have some of what ever you are smoking?

Nuts

TAM:)

I have heard this argument before of course. We agree that the incicents were criminal acts and the locations of the impacts and the planes were locations of crimes. Very good. Therefore proper forensic examinations of the locations and the planes or what remained of them should have taken place. But dit it? And I doubt very much a criminal trial will ever take place. Two highly placed suspects are kept isolated somewhere and have apparently admitted everything but I wonder if they actually tell the truth or just make it up. Probably the latter. It is not easy to admit a crime that you have not committed. And they will probably deny everything in a court room and maybe argue it was somebody else that committed the crime! So there we are.
However, it should not be impossible for FBI to show today that some properly recorded and documented wreckage parts actually belonged to the missing planes, etc. It has nothing to do with the criminal investigation. But it seems they cannot! Sometimes I wonder what they are smoking?

Heiwa

5th August 2007, 01:04 AM

Why do you keep ignoring my questions? I'm afraid that the burden of proof is on YOU, yet you haven't presented ANY evidence to support anything you're saying.

Are you ever going to do that?

You think everything was planted at the Pentagon, right? Present your evidence.

Well, your photo of a rusty or schorched seat belt in the grass didn't impress me.

My hypothesis is that the explosion at Pentagon was caused by devices planted in the outside wall of Pentagon and inside the building = criminal, terrorist sabotage. Evidence? No plane parts seen anywhere outside the building! And it is the simplest way to cause the observed damages. The plane? Deception of course. There were apparently a number of planes circling over Pentagon at the time of incident.
On this famous surveillance video from the parking gate at Pentagon you actually see some fragments from the explosion falling down on the ground just in front of the cameras and a guard. What were they and how did they get there? I doubt very much they originated from a plane that penetrated the E-wall and then exploded inside Pentagon. The guard himself seems to have been sleeping at his switch. He comes out - looks - and goes back to his switch?

GlennB

5th August 2007, 01:23 AM

Unfit4Command

5th August 2007, 01:34 AM

Well, your photo of a rusty or schorched seat belt in the grass didn't impress me.

Nothing impresses you Because you ignore anything that goes against your insane theories. You believe that the bodies and everything else that matched Flight 77 at the Pentagon was planted.

My hypothesis is that the explosion at Pentagon was caused by devices planted in the outside wall of Pentagon and inside the building = criminal, terrorist sabotage.

Evidence of these devices being planted?

Evidence? No plane parts seen anywhere outside the building!

Uhhh...

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Pentagon/Debris/nota-plane.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Pentagon/Debris/debris4_visible1.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Pentagon/Debris/015-full.jpg

Just the show a few images. Debris was all over the lawn.

And it is the simplest way to cause the observed damages. The plane? Deception of course. There were apparently a number of planes circling over Pentagon at the time of incident.

I've heard of three planes around the Pentagon at the time of the attack. A C-130,a white jet, and a large American Airlines commercial aircraft. Guess which one the witnesses saw hit the Pentagon.

this famous surveillance video from the parking gate at Pentagon you actually see some fragments from the explosion falling down on the ground just in front of the cameras and a guard. What were they and how did they get there?

Maybe the massive explosion from the PLANE striking the building had something to do with it. How the hell can you tell that those "fragments" aren't plane debris?

doubt very much they originated from a plane that penetrated the E-wall and then exploded inside Pentagon. The guard himself seems to have been sleeping at his switch. He comes out - looks - and goes back to his switch?

Oh...you doubt very much that they originated from the plane, but once again you present no evidence for this claim. Are you suggesting that planes exploding can't propel debris away from crash sites?

Once again I'll ask you.
I really want you to answer this question. How is finding airline passengers still strapped to their seats evidence that the plane didn't crash there?! Did the unknown people rip out seats of the aircraft, burn the passengers and the seats, then carry them into the Pentagon without anyone noticing and set them there? Do you have any idea how sick your ideas are?
Not only are they sick, they're also not backed up by evidence, saying "they could be planted (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2828329&postcount=481)" isn't evidence.

Panoply_Prefect

5th August 2007, 02:14 AM

Just a headsup: Heiwa is the king of goalpost moving. You will notice that posting pictures goes nowhere with him.

Unfit4Command

5th August 2007, 02:16 AM

Just a headsup: Heiwa is the king of goalpost moving. You will notice that posting pictures goes nowhere with him.

I've noticed. It's like, as Gravy put it with Fetzer, goalposts in a tornado.

beachnut

5th August 2007, 02:50 AM

Well, your photo of a rusty or schorched seat belt in the grass didn't impress me.

My hypothesis is that the explosion at Pentagon was caused by devices planted in the outside wall of Pentagon and inside the building = criminal, terrorist sabotage. Evidence? No plane parts seen anywhere outside the building! And it is the simplest way to cause the observed damages. The plane? Deception of course. There were apparently a number of planes circling over Pentagon at the time of incident.
On this famous surveillance video from the parking gate at Pentagon you actually see some fragments from the explosion falling down on the ground just in front of the cameras and a guard. What were they and how did they get there? I doubt very much they originated from a plane that penetrated the E-wall and then exploded inside Pentagon. The guard himself seems to have been sleeping at his switch. He comes out - looks - and goes back to his switch?
What bunch of junk. You must live in a big CT world of lies. You never worked at the Pentagon. The impact was not an explosion. You are wrong again.

Unfit4Command

5th August 2007, 03:10 AM

Hey, did the explosives that were planted in the Pentagon without anyone noticing cause this damage to the columns inside of the Pentagon:

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Pentagon/Column%20damage/innerdamage6.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Pentagon/Column%20damage/innerdamage1.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Pentagon/Column%20damage/innerdamage2.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Pentagon/Column%20damage/innerdamage3.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Pentagon/Column%20damage/image038.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Pentagon/Column%20damage/Damagedbeam.jpg

Or does that seem more like something plane debris would do? More photographs in the Pentagon Building Performance Report (http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf).

Also, how where were the passengers of Flight 77 landed, unloaded, killed, burned, and strapped back to their seats before being planted inside of the Pentagon? And who did it? Where did it occur? How did people manage to carry human remains, some strapped to seats, into the Pentagon without anyone noticing? Answer, or admit that your theory is insane and sick.

Heiwa

5th August 2007, 05:51 AM

My bolding.

You already know that's untrue, so why are you repeating it?

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/757-americanlogo-full.jpg

Are you just a compulsive liar, Heiwa? Or is it attention you seek? Either way, some gentle psychiatric treatment could help.

No, I am just curious. So from what part of a plane - AA77? - is the debris on the photo? I doubt very much it is from a Boeing 767/200. Could be from a helicopter?

Heiwa

5th August 2007, 05:56 AM

Unfit4Command

5th August 2007, 05:59 AM

Unfit4Command

5th August 2007, 06:03 AM

No, I am just curious. So from what part of a plane - AA77? - is the debris on the photo? I doubt very much it is from a Boeing 767/200. Could be from a helicopter?

For once I agree with you. A 767 didn't strike the Pentagon, it was a 757.

Any no, it couldn't be from a helicopter. How many helicopters do you know of that use the landing gear found in the Pentagon, the engines, have a shiny aluminum shell with red letters, and carry bodies and personal effects of people on board a 757? None.

Does these pieces of debris look like they came from a helicopter?

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Pentagon/Debris/wreckage13.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Pentagon/Debris/458_flight77_cockpit_voice_recor-1.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Pentagon/Debris/wreckage2.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Pentagon/Debris/rim1.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Pentagon/Debris/debris10.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Pentagon/Debris/Pentagon757MainGearComparison-full.jpg

Or was all of this planted along with everything else?

Heiwa

5th August 2007, 06:16 AM

I want you to answer these questions that I've asked several times.

I really want you to answer this question. How is finding airline passengers still strapped to their seats evidence that the plane didn't crash there?! Did the unknown people rip out seats of the aircraft, burn the passengers and the seats, then carry them into the Pentagon without anyone noticing and set them there? Do you have any idea how sick your ideas are?
Not only are they sick, they're also not backed up by evidence, saying "they could be planted (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2828329&postcount=481)" isn't evidence.

As far as I am concerned FBI has never informed that they found passengers strapped to their seats (with phones?) inside Pentagon. That info seems to have been planted in the newspapers later. I am only interested in official info, best backed up by some proper documentation and a name to contact that can confirm the info.

Heiwa

5th August 2007, 06:19 AM

For once I agree with you. A 767 didn't strike the Pentagon, it was a 757.

Any no, it couldn't be from a helicopter. How many helicopters do you know of that use the landing gear found in the Pentagon, the engines, have a shiny aluminum shell with red letters, and carry bodies and personal effects of people on board a 757? None.

Does these pieces of debris look like they came from a helicopter?

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Pentagon/Debris/wreckage13.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Pentagon/Debris/458_flight77_cockpit_voice_recor-1.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Pentagon/Debris/wreckage2.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Pentagon/Debris/rim1.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Pentagon/Debris/debris10.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Pentagon/Debris/Pentagon757MainGearComparison-full.jpg

Or was all of this planted along with everything else?

As long as the wreckage is not properly documented (place/time found, by whom, treatment, history, origin, identified by whom, etc) I am not impressed.

Unfit4Command

5th August 2007, 06:51 AM

As far as I am concerned FBI has never informed that they found passengers strapped to their seats (with phones?) inside Pentagon. That info seems to have been planted in the newspapers later. I am only interested in official info, best backed up by some proper documentation and a name to contact that can confirm the info.

The info wasn't planted in newspapers later. The article about the bodies still strapped to their seats is from 9/13 and Williams really saw them. This happened to real people, why don't you quit denying it without a SHRED OF EVIDENCE!?!

"WASHINGTON — On Tuesday, Army Staff Sgt. Mark Williams witnessed a combat zone for the first time in his 11 years of service. He never imagined it would be inside the Pentagon. One of the first recovery personnel to enter the crippled headquarters building after a hijacked Boeing 757 smashed into it, the urban search-and-rescue specialist found a gruesome sight. "If anyone has ever burned a pot roast, they'll know what the victims looked like," Williams, 30, said Thursday after another 12-hour shift of searching for 190 bodies — those of 126 missing Pentagon personnel and the 64 aboard the doomed jetliner.
...
When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.

"It was the worst thing you can imagine," said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. "I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/sept01/2001-09-14-pentagon-usat.htm

Do you have evidence he's lying? We already know that victims DNA and remains were recovered from the building. One body was even returned to her family to be cremated.

"Rescue crews were able to pull Calley's body from Flight 77's wreckage. Now, after a long period of hesitation, Jensen plans to let the Pacific waters take her cremated remains."
http://gilroydispatch.com/news/contentview.asp?c=73724

I recommend reading this document. http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div831/strbase/pub_pres/Edson2004.pdf

You have still failed to present evidence of anything being planted, you really suck at this. Quit ignoring everything and dancing around the questions.

The bowed columns I showed above weren't only from right near the E Ring wall, some were further into the Pentagon. Did explosives inside of the building to that also? Do you have any idea how idiotic planted explosives inside of the building sounds? I want evidence. Not the garbage you've been giving so far.

As long as the wreckage is not properly documented (place/time found, by whom, treatment, history, origin, identified by whom, etc) I am not impressed.Hey, I haven't seen any proper documentation (place/time found, by whom, treatment, history, origin, identified by whom, etc...) of debris in any other plane crashes I've seen. So does that mean no planes have ever crashed?

I'm done with you and your horrible arguments. Let this thread die people, Heiwa is unwell and needs to seek help.

Panoply_Prefect

5th August 2007, 07:25 AM

I've often asked Heiwa how he can be sure that it was actually the Pentagon that was hit/bombed - I haven't found any evidence of properly handling of the building debris, neither the loose parts, nor the stationary. How do we now it wasn't some other building? Actually how do we know a terrorist act happend at all? This could just be a national conspiracy perpertrated by the entire american people, just to get some attention from the rest of us.

Bottom line is until Heiwa gets an officiall invitation from the FBI that reads something like "Dear mr Bjorkman, we could really use all that expertise you've gathered running your one-person company from a Wanadoo-account in France. Would you be as kind as to join us here in Virginia and help us go thru all this evidence from 9/11 we've been wrongfully witholding", he will deny that anything, anything at all, might be considered evidence of what actually happened september, 11, 2001.

If that would happen, he would of course move the goalposts again, and claim that the FBI is trying to buy the no.1 truther off.

(BTW, I seem to recall that one of the posters here, actually were one of those recovering debris at the Pentagon?)
EDIT: It was Hal Bidlack (http://forums.randi.org/z/index.php?z-profile=Hal-Bidlack).

T.A.M.

5th August 2007, 08:30 AM

As long as the wreckage is not properly documented (place/time found, by whom, treatment, history, origin, identified by whom, etc) I am not impressed.

Once again, Heiwa, for the love of god, JUST BECAUSE YOU DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO SUCH DOCUMENTATION DOES NOT MEAN IT DOESNT EXIST.

If you feel you have to see such documentation before you will believe it exists, than you will continue to live in blissful ignorance.

They have no need, NO OBLIGATION to show you or any members of the general public such lists, so why should they?

TAM:)

Heiwa

5th August 2007, 10:24 AM

I've often asked Heiwa how he can be sure that it was actually the Pentagon that was hit/bombed

I have never heard that (stupid) question. I believe you are in trance and denial like many others about 9/11? But it is good that you know realize that Pentagon was hit/bombed. Question remains how.

BTW - trance = abnormal, dreamy state when you accept the most preposterous suggestions by the authorities. Denial = statement that something is not true.

OT - do you still believe the Estonia sank due to too weak visor locks?

Heiwa

5th August 2007, 10:28 AM

Once again, Heiwa, for the love of god, JUST BECAUSE YOU DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO SUCH DOCUMENTATION DOES NOT MEAN IT DOESNT EXIST.

If you feel you have to see such documentation before you will believe it exists, than you will continue to live in blissful ignorance.

They have no need, NO OBLIGATION to show you or any members of the general public such lists, so why should they?

TAM:)

I think 'they' should abide by the US constitution ... and not try to change it. :)

funk de fino

5th August 2007, 10:43 AM

twinstead

5th August 2007, 10:47 AM

Wow, a couple totally different approaches to conspiracy debate on the forum today.

I'm not sure what technique is more aggravating--Heiwa who basically ignores evidence that contradicts his position, or A-Train, who acknowledges the evidence but invents intricate, complicated solutions to the apparent contradictions.

beachnut

5th August 2007, 11:07 AM

I have never heard that (stupid) question. I believe you are in trance and denial like many others about 9/11? But it is good that you know realize that Pentagon was hit/bombed. Question remains how.

BTW - trance = abnormal, dreamy state when you accept the most preposterous suggestions by the authorities. Denial = statement that something is not true.

OT - do you still believe the Estonia sank due to too weak visor locks?You are a CTer on everything. Your posts have all been stupid questions.

Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, only idiots from 9/11 truth make up stuff and deny it. Enough evidence is there to figure it out. If you have some facts present them. So far you have just had bad question and you are repeating lies from 9/11 truth.

T.A.M.

5th August 2007, 11:17 AM

I think 'they' should abide by the US constitution ... and not try to change it. :)

your point is ridiculously obtuse, unless you can show me where in the US Constitution, it says that an investigative organization, or law enforcement organization is required to reveal to the general public, evidence in an ongoing, or even stalled but still open criminal case.

TAM:)

Heiwa

5th August 2007, 11:37 AM

your point is ridiculously obtuse, unless you can show me where in the US Constitution, it says that an investigative organization, or law enforcement organization is required to reveal to the general public, evidence in an ongoing, or even stalled but still open criminal case.

TAM:)

Thanks for using obtuse (I am so stupid I had to look it up to learn what you are saying). Open criminal case is just an excuse to hide incompetency or worse; don't you agree? Or/so why don't 'they' start the trial? :mad: The accused need not to be present (the person will deny everything anyway). Present the evidence! If you have any! Much better than starting wars and disturbing heiwa.:)

Heiwa

5th August 2007, 11:41 AM

You are a CTer on everything. Your posts have all been stupid questions.

Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, only idiots from 9/11 truth make up stuff and deny it.

I thought we were nazis.:p

Heiwa

5th August 2007, 12:14 PM

there were photos of the bodies in the seats presented as evidence in the moussaui trial along with many other photographs of the pentagon attack

go and look at them

So Moussaui was accused of putting them there? How did he do that?

Panoply_Prefect

5th August 2007, 12:47 PM

I have never heard that (stupid) question.

Of course you think its stupid, its in line with the type of pretend-critical thinking you've shown ample examples of.

OT - do you still believe the Estonia sank due to too weak visor locks?

Feel free to quote anywhere I expressed my view on what the cause of the Estonia accident. I have no recollection of ever doing so.

twinstead

5th August 2007, 12:51 PM

So Moussaui was accused of putting them there? How did he do that?

Is there such a thing as an accomplice in the universe you live in?

funk de fino

5th August 2007, 01:08 PM

So Moussaui was accused of putting them there? How did he do that?

stop being ignorant and making claims that no-one else has made, you wanted proper evidence that there were bodies in the pentagon they are contained in the evidence that was shown to the court for the above trial

if this blows your claims out of the water then its probably best you dont look

i hear the sound of another bubble bursting

Panoply_Prefect

5th August 2007, 01:20 PM

stop being ignorant and making claims that no-one else has made, you wanted proper evidence that there were bodies in the pentagon they are contained in the evidence that was shown to the court for the above trial

if this blows your claims out of the water then its probably best you dont look

i hear the sound of another bubble bursting

And to add, I would imagine that Moussais lawyer would have torn any fake evidence to pieces. But of course, they are all bought by the omnipotent NWO, aren't they?

Heiwa

5th August 2007, 02:16 PM

Of course you think its stupid, its in line with the type of pretend-critical thinking you've shown ample examples of.

Feel free to quote anywhere I expressed my view on what the cause of the Estonia accident. I have no recollection of ever doing so.

Sorry, gate keeper. You said you had asked me the question but you had not. Too busy with other things?

Re Estonia I was just asking a polite question - no quote. Do you have an answer? Just to know your IQ, you know. Gate keeper!

Heiwa

5th August 2007, 02:21 PM

Is there such a thing as an accomplice in the universe you live in?

Off course. But Moussaui was just another patsy in my opinion. According to his mother he appeared completely drugged during the trial (sic). So he never admitted strapping corpses to seats in Pentagon as you suggest.

Heiwa

5th August 2007, 02:26 PM

stop being ignorant and making claims that no-one else has made, you wanted proper evidence that there were bodies in the pentagon they are contained in the evidence that was shown to the court for the above trial

if this blows your claims out of the water then its probably best you dont look

i hear the sound of another bubble bursting

But Moussaui was not tried for putting bodies in Pentagon. So that 'evidence' was not even reviewed. You wonder why it was introduced? To deceive people?

twinstead

5th August 2007, 02:29 PM

Off course. But Moussaui was just another patsy in my opinion. According to his mother he appeared completely drugged during the trial (sic). So he never admitted strapping corpses to seats in Pentagon as you suggest.

Well, at least you qualified that as 'your opinion', because whether you believe Moussaui was properly implicated in that trial or not, you have to admit that the evidence presented is potent.

Basically, it presents the 'official story' of the 911 attacks out there for everybody to see and critique. You can speculate all you want, you can choose to believe his mother (my child would NEVER do anything like that. Ever heard that before?), you can claim all the evidence is planted or fake.

What you can't deny is that IF LEGIT, this evidence totally disproves your theory about that day.

It is understandable that you would downplay it or declare it 'fake'; if I were in your situation I would too.

Corsair 115

5th August 2007, 02:41 PM

I thought we were nazis.:pNo, what he said was:

If you are a truther, you guys act like a NAZI propaganda machine. Note the bolded words. It was a simile.

The Nazi regime is well-noted for its use of propaganda to get the population onto its side. Triumph of the Will is widely regarded as the best example of a propaganda film ever made.

Panoply_Prefect

5th August 2007, 03:52 PM

Sorry, gate keeper. You said you had asked me the question but you had not. Too busy with other things?

Yes, as a matter of fact I am. But ok, one of the times I brought this up was this march in the Flashback-thread labeled "[911] 11 September 2001 - WTC / Pentagon tråden". I added to the comment Majava gave when you claimed it was a piece of cake getting bloodsamples from the living relatives of the hijackers. I added "And just like PAD I wonder how we really can be sure that it is the Pentagon on those pictures. Did the FBI take samples of the buildings?". This was about the time you thought that the NTSB and the FBI did separate FDR-analysies, that differs from each other, that the NTSB was in violation with international laws for not investigating the crashes and that the DNA-analysies of the victims were made by "The Pentagon themselves".

I have no opinion of the Estonia tragedy, other than that I lost some friends that night.

Panoply_Prefect

5th August 2007, 03:55 PM

No, what he said was:

Note the bolded words. It was a simile.

Truthers do tend to have a problem with those...

LashL

5th August 2007, 04:32 PM

Truthers do tend to have a problem with those...

Indeed, they do. Why, some of them even make complete fools of themselves on BBC programs by demonstrating their complete failure to comprehend what a simile is. :D

twinstead

5th August 2007, 04:43 PM

According to Heiwa, only we bozos who believe the cursed official story must present evidence to support it; all HE has to do is imagine. He is WAY to cool for 'evidence'...

Heiwa

6th August 2007, 12:48 AM

Yes, as a matter of fact I am. But ok, one of the times I brought this up was this march in the Flashback-thread labeled "[911] 11 September 2001 - WTC / Pentagon tråden". I added to the comment Majava gave when you claimed it was a piece of cake getting bloodsamples from the living relatives of the hijackers. I added "And just like PAD I wonder how we really can be sure that it is the Pentagon on those pictures. Did the FBI take samples of the buildings?". This was about the time you thought that the NTSB and the FBI did separate FDR-analysies, that differs from each other, that the NTSB was in violation with international laws for not investigating the crashes and that the DNA-analysies of the victims were made by "The Pentagon themselves".

I have no opinion of the Estonia tragedy, other than that I lost some friends that night.

You should get an opionion of the Estonia tragedy as it has many similarities with 9/11. Start at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/disasterinvestigation.htm .

In both cases the authorities announce the causes within a few days with help of media and 'experts' and the official investigations become delayed many years. Testimonies not supporting the official causes are censored. Scientific reports ordered by the authorities are twisted just to prove what is requested (in the E case the scientific reports are simply falsified). Wreckage evidences are destroyed. Critics of the official causes are harrassed. Alternative, more probable causes are not investigated. Politicians lie about the matter officially. Etc, etc.

ref

6th August 2007, 01:24 AM

In both cases the authorities announce the causes within a few days with help of media and 'experts' and the official investigations become delayed many years. Testimonies not supporting the official causes are censored. Scientific reports ordered by the authorities are twisted just to prove what is requested (in the E case the scientific reports are simply falsified). Wreckage evidences are destroyed. Critics of the official causes are harrassed. Alternative, more probable causes are not investigated. Politicians lie about the matter officially. Etc, etc.

Could you sum up in a few short sentences, what you believe happened with Estonia? I don't want to go through your whole page. And let's not hijack this thread. Just a short description. Do you believe it was a bomb, or what?

Zorglub

6th August 2007, 02:54 AM

funk de fino

6th August 2007, 03:19 AM

But Moussaui was not tried for putting bodies in Pentagon. So that 'evidence' was not even reviewed. You wonder why it was introduced? To deceive people?

its still official evidence which you said did not exist you numpty?

have you even looked at any of the evidence supplied for the trial?

are you now saying that they did have evidence but it was all faked?

ref

6th August 2007, 03:20 AM

Zorglub

6th August 2007, 03:44 AM

Here is the link you meant:

Danke schön mein herr.

Panoply_Prefect

6th August 2007, 04:26 AM

Panoply_Prefect

6th August 2007, 04:29 AM

Well Heiwa. As I haven´t made enough posts yet I cannot post the link properly. Just add the www and remove the space before the ".com":
realinsidenews. com/911trutharticle010.html

At least socialworker knows how to copy/paste and edit videos. Too bad he used his skills in his own film.
Heiwa. You say?

To clarify Zorglubs post, that site claims that the truther-film "September Clues" is a fraud and shows example of deceiptful editing. Its interesting to see how parts of the 911-truther movements fights with the other, Steven Jones leaves "Scholars" on count of the Starwars laserbeam- and mininuke-theories of Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer, Avery et. al is bashing the "no-planers" like those behind "The Pentacon" etc. Its very, ummm... cultic.

Heiwa

6th August 2007, 05:18 AM

its still official evidence which you said did not exist you numpty?

have you even looked at any of the evidence supplied for the trial?

are you now saying that they did have evidence but it was all faked?

No I haven't looked at the evidence of the Moussaui trial. I only followed it in the daily newspaper I read (Le Figaro) and it never mentioned it. Pls provide a link to this official evidence (scorched passenger bodies strapped to airplane seats inside Pentagon as presented at the Moussaui trial) and an explanation why it was shown.

Heiwa

PS No need to add obtuse epithets in a message. This is a friendly discussion forum!:)

Dave Rogers

6th August 2007, 05:40 AM

No I haven't looked at the evidence of the Moussaui trial. I only followed it in the daily newspaper I read (Le Figaro) and it never mentioned it. Pls provide a link to this official evidence (scorched passenger bodies strapped to airplane seats inside Pentagon as presented at the Moussaui trial) and an explanation why it was shown.

It's not hard to find - I googled "Zacarias Moussaoui trial" and it was about the third or fourth link.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/index.html

gives you the index to all the info on the trial. The specific pictures you're looking for are

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html

Take a look at exhibits P200042, -5, -7 and -8, but be warned that they're an extremely unpleasant sight and may be upsetting to view.

Dave

Heiwa

6th August 2007, 05:57 AM

Could you sum up in a few short sentences, what you believe happened with Estonia? I don't want to go through your whole page. And let's not hijack this thread. Just a short description. Do you believe it was a bomb, or what?

A passenger/cargo ferry sinks in 30 minutes and 852 dies in the Baltic 28.09.1994. Most survivors noticed a heavy impact around midnight Swedish time (01 hrs local time) - like Titanic colliding with an iceberg. A few minutes later the ferry rolls 30° port/starboard and people still awake in bars and casino and lose furniture are thrown around. Luckily the vessel regained stability with <15° list to starboard a minute later so that >300 persons could immediately evacuate to open decks 7 and 8 during 10 minutes - most of them to the port, upper side. After that the list was >40° and increasing so nobody could get out. Only three crew members did not evacuate at once! They returned to deck 1 at the bottom of the ship (engine control room) below waterline and reported various things, e.g. that water leaked into the ship at the forward bow ramp on deck 2 above waterline several minutes after the rolling and stable list <15° starboard. After 7-10 minutes they evacuated from deck 1 and two of them joined the other surviviors on the port, upper side. How they got there is a mystery (Actually, they never stayed down in the control room as they would have been trapped there. They had started the bilge pumps because the vessel was leaking under waterline and got out at once when the rollin started).

The ship had then 90° list at around 01.30 hrs local time - people were walking on the flat, port side - and most surviviors then jumped into the sea; some got into some life rafts on the side. A few minutes later the ship disappeared below the surface.

The authorities immediately announced that the visor protecting the bow ramp on deck 2 had fallen off and ripped the bow ramp fully open and that 1000's tons water had entered into the superstructure 2.5 m above waterline within a few minutes and caused the vessel to list to starboard.

Three years later the authorities concluded that faulty visor locks by incompetent engineers/workers had caused the accident. Otherwise the ship was in perfect shape with correct life saving equipment, etc. Big waves causing 100 tons sharp and loud impacts on the bow had ripped apart the locks and the visor had fallen off. (Falsified model tests were used to conclude that! Actually there were no wave impacts at all. The weather was not too bad).

That the three star witnesses had only seen a closed ramp had to be forgotten. Actually, their complete testimonies are faked several times.

So the ship sank with the visor attached. As the authorities had announced it had fallen off, they arranged that it was removed from the wreck under water using explosives, etc. Unbelievable? How did they do it? First they announced a false position of the wreck a mile east of the real wreck. Then they removed the visor and after that they salvaged the visor at the real wreck position. Later they said they had salvaged the visor a mile west of the wreck. And finally they announced the true wreck position.

What actually happened? The ferry apparently collided with a submarine stationary in the water and the starboard underwater side was damaged/pushed in in two locations - 100's tons/min water leaked in. This was the collision with the 'iceberg'. The inflowing water spread through open watertight doors and reduced the stability to zero causing the >30° rolling five minutes later. More water flowed in and stabilized the ferry, the list became <15° and people could get out.

Unfortunately the ferry lacked regulatory life saving equipment so all people had to jump into the water to survive. The ferry was a floating coffin. And it was also used to carry ex USSR military equipment as contraband to Sweden.

But this could not be admitted. So a cover up was arranged. It is quite easy. Just tell some corrupt civil servants and 'experts' to invent something. Like 9/11. Back to that subject!

funk de fino

6th August 2007, 06:12 AM

No I haven't looked at the evidence of the Moussaui trial. I only followed it in the daily newspaper I read (Le Figaro) and it never mentioned it. Pls provide a link to this official evidence (scorched passenger bodies strapped to airplane seats inside Pentagon as presented at the Moussaui trial) and an explanation why it was shown.

Heiwa

PS No need to add obtuse epithets in a message. This is a friendly discussion forum!:)

sorry but i am not friendly with people who peddle lies and try to backtrack on claims they have made, if you act stupid you get treated stupid

if you were the researcher you think you are, you would have seen the evidence from the trial already, moussaui was an accessory in al qieda so this evidence was for his court case, now go and look at all the evidence so kindly supplied to you before coming back and posting more wild claims

Heiwa

6th August 2007, 08:50 AM

It's not hard to find - I googled "Zacarias Moussaoui trial" and it was about the third or fourth link.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/index.html

gives you the index to all the info on the trial. The specific pictures you're looking for are

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html

Take a look at exhibits P200042, -5, -7 and -8, but be warned that they're an extremely unpleasant sight and may be upsetting to view.

Dave

Thanks for the link. There is generally no evidence of an AA77 plane crasch presented except maybe for P20030 showing some unidentified mechanical parts origin of which is not known. The exhibits mentioned do not show dead passengers strapped in chairs; it is most likely Pentagon employées that have been identified.

Actually the evidence of the Moussaoui trial only reflects the 9/11 Commission report info that are completely unsatisfactory.

It always fills me with surprise and wonder that no identified wreckage parts of any kind of AA77 have ever been shown. That's why I participate in this forum. Result? Obtuse epithets!

funk de fino

6th August 2007, 09:26 AM

Thanks for the link. There is generally no evidence of an AA77 plane crasch presented except maybe for P20030 showing some unidentified mechanical parts origin of which is not known. The exhibits mentioned do not show dead passengers strapped in chairs; it is most likely Pentagon employées that have been identified.

Actually the evidence of the Moussaoui trial only reflects the 9/11 Commission report info that are completely unsatisfactory.

It always fills me with surprise and wonder that no identified wreckage parts of any kind of AA77 have ever been shown. That's why I participate in this forum. Result? Obtuse epithets!

so there are bodies in the pictures? good now we have cleared that up

is this the first time you had seen the evidence for that trial? have you researched it and came to a conclusion about it all?

you have exactly what experience to say that the parts that are on this list and shown on other sites are not from a boeing 757?

Heiwa

6th August 2007, 09:49 AM

so there are bodies in the pictures? good now we have cleared that up

is this the first time you had seen the evidence for that trial? have you researched it and came to a conclusion about it all?

you have exactly what experience to say that the parts that are on this list and shown on other sites are not from a boeing 757?

Yes, there are no bodies of passengers strapped in airplane seats in the evidence of the Moussauoi trial. Yes, there is no list of any wreckage parts of AA77 or any Boeing 757/200 presented at the Moussaoui trial. Yes, this is my experience after having studied all the evidence.
Yes, I have seen all the photos of the trial alleging that damages were caused by AA77 at Pentagon ... but no evidence of any sort that the text and photo belongs together. It fills me with bewilderment. The court only assumed the damages were caused by AA77 as typed on the photos. It is not justice!:mad:

funk de fino

6th August 2007, 10:01 AM

Yes, there are no bodies of passengers strapped in airplane seats in the evidence of the Moussauoi trial. Yes, there is no list of any wreckage parts of AA77 or any Boeing 757/200 presented at the Moussaoui trial. Yes, this is my experience after having studied all the evidence.
Yes, I have seen all the photos of the trial alleging that damages were caused by AA77 at Pentagon ... but no evidence of any sort that the text and photo belongs together. It fills me with bewilderment. The court only assumed the damages were caused by AA77 as typed on the photos. It is not justice!:mad:

so you are one of those moves the goal posts everytime you are shown stuff which bursts your bubble and then jumps onto something else after saying everything which proves you wrong is faked or planted

if you had previously studied all this evidence why did you have to ask for a link to it?

have you listened to all the recordings and watched all the videos in the evidence?

i think you are telling porkie pies

ps you never told me what your experience in 757's was, that would let you make judgements on whether one had crashed at the pentagon or not?

Belz...

6th August 2007, 10:37 AM

How do you verify wreckage?

Everything you find must be properly documented under controlled conditions, etc.

Uh-huh, but since you keep claiming that said wreckage is planted, how would you tell the difference ?

You do not allow amateurs to collect it and throw it in a garbage container as done by FBI.

The FBI are amateurs ? News to me.

If you can't spot a special effects shot on a normal speed viewing of a video, then you've got no eye for spotting special effects. Period. End of story.

And I'd like to add that those CGI planes probably took weeks to composite into those shots.

So the plane didn't burn at all!

AMAZING! Every fact in the universe supports your theory, even the actual OPPOSITE of what you thought, which ALSO supported your theory.

it was the government that deceived the population

Ah, yes. The government. Damn that monolithic, subhuman entity!

Why would they falsify that? For selling DVDs?

False dichotomy.

Amazingly no seats or safety belts were recovered at Shanksville but at Pentagon yes. From the cock pit. That had gone through a reinforced wall.

So... what ? Seat belts should simply vanish in thin air when forced through a wall ?

Not one WMD! They found some persons stating that Iraq might have considered WMD and so on. Not very convincing.

What does this have to do with 9/11 ?

They seem pretty serious in my opinion.

Yeah, that's the burden of proof in courts around 1700.

Belz...

6th August 2007, 10:45 AM

I actually asked Beachnut but the answer is wrong. CIA evidently produced false 'facts' about WMDs in Iraq at the request of their masters to suit their needs.

Evidently ? You picked one of several, equally probable possibilities and call that one "evident" ? Why this one in particular ? Is it because it fits your preconceived notions ?

Please - this photo could be anything.

So this comes right back to the question: how can you make sure of anything ?

I (people?) am accusing some gangsters of mass murder.

Circular reasoning.

However, it should not be impossible for FBI to show today that some properly recorded and documented wreckage parts actually belonged to the missing planes, etc. It has nothing to do with the criminal investigation. But it seems they cannot!

Occam's razor, Heiwa. Thousands of people see a plane crash into a skyscraper. Said building collapses. We find aircraft wreckage in the debris. They look like 767 parts from that airline. What's the obvious conclusion ?

No plane parts seen anywhere outside the building!

That's a complete lie.

And it is the simplest way to cause the observed damages.

Begging the question.

The plane? Deception of course.

You're proceeding from unproven assumptions.

No, I am just curious. So from what part of a plane - AA77? - is the debris on the photo? I doubt very much it is from a Boeing 767/200. Could be from a helicopter?

Occam's razor, Heiwa. Think.

Why would there be helicopter debris on the lawn ?

As long as the wreckage is not properly documented (place/time found, by whom, treatment, history, origin, identified by whom, etc) I am not impressed.

Oh, so you WOULD be impressed with that information ? You wouldn't claim that it was "made up" ? Really ?

Belz...

6th August 2007, 10:50 AM

BTW - trance = abnormal, dreamy state when you accept the most preposterous suggestions by the authorities. Denial = statement that something is not true.

Stop fancying yourself a psychologist. You don't know squat about anything.

Open criminal case is just an excuse to hide incompetency or worse; don't you agree?

It can be. Non sequitur.

Sorry, gate keeper.

And here we have another Malcolm Kirkman. A man who thinks everyone who disagrees with him is automatically an evil statu quo protector paid for by the government because the "evidence" is so obvious that no one in his right mind could possibly deny it.

There is generally no evidence of an AA77 plane crasch presented except maybe for P20030 showing some unidentified mechanical parts origin of which is not known.

Okay, okay. Let's take this from the beginning. How would YOU identify wreckage parts. Details, please.

Heiwa

6th August 2007, 12:07 PM

Okay, okay. Let's take this from the beginning. How would YOU identify wreckage parts. Details, please.

Let's take the dead bodies in Pentagon as an example. How did they die? Apart from recording their locations in the building and the surroundings according normal FBI procedures I would recommend an autopsy of every body (also normal FBI procedure). Then I would know if they died from suffocation/smoke inhalation, being knocked out by falling debris, being blasted by an explosive device, etc. I assume some victims had been blown to pieces and evaporated and could not be located. It seems no autopsies were done by FBI & Co so we do not know how they died. Why? Because I assume some bodies can be shown to have died due to an explosive device in the building!!

According FBI an airplane penetrated the outer E-wall and spilled 20-30 tons of jet fuel inside the building that then ignited and burnt. The pictures of the explosion taken from outside show something completely different. A sudden explosion, white water vapour developing and a bright yellow fire ball expanding from inside indicating very high temperature. It could never have been caused by jet fuel flying in from outside! Only a heavy explosive device could have caused it - probably planted in the building. And then we look inside. You would expect a lot of soot everywhere due to the jet fuel. But you see none or little! Actually the fire became very small and normal very quickly = only material originally in the building was burning. Where did the jet fuel go?

But you were asking about wreckage parts. Let's take the seats of the air plane where passengers were found strapped in with their seat belts allegedly found by some fire fighters. I assume FBI then handled bodies/seats.

I would evidently, after taken care of the dead bodies as outlined above, record, document, examine the seats/belts to find out how they survived the crash. And then save them for further examination later to present them at any trial that could follow.

So where are these seats? We are told FBI has them and everything else but cannot even show them due to some rules. I find that preposterous. Can't FBI show a damaged air plane chair/seat/belt/phone from Pentagon? There was a schorched body in it.

According various sources a certain Mme Barbara O, unfortunate A77 passenger, should have been found inside the Pentagon. I doubt it very much. What evidence exists? Some DNA analyzed by Pentagon. No autopsy. I am not convinced. I am perplexed by the sloppy work of FBI. :mad:

GlennB

6th August 2007, 12:52 PM

.....
According various sources a certain Mme Barbara O, unfortunate A77 passenger, should have been found inside the Pentagon. I doubt it very much. What evidence exists? Some DNA analyzed by Pentagon. No autopsy. I am not convinced. I am perplexed by the sloppy work of FBI. :mad:

Heiwa, it's quite hard to discuss your comment above without pointing out that the remains of Barbara O might well not have been sufficient for an autopsy.

If all that was left was scraps of flesh, bone, blood, hair etc, how would an autopsy have been possible?

It makes me feel slightly sick listening to your absurd arguments, even before we discuss the nature of the remains of innocent victims.

You need help.

T.A.M.

6th August 2007, 01:20 PM

I would evidently, after taken care of the dead bodies as outlined above, record, document, examine the seats/belts to find out how they survived the crash. And then save them for further examination later to present them at any trial that could follow.

So where are these seats? We are told FBI has them and everything else but cannot even show them due to some rules. I find that preposterous. Can't FBI show a damaged air plane chair/seat/belt/phone from Pentagon? There was a schorched body in it.

According various sources a certain Mme Barbara O, unfortunate A77 passenger, should have been found inside the Pentagon. I doubt it very much. What evidence exists? Some DNA analyzed by Pentagon. No autopsy. I am not convinced. I am perplexed by the sloppy work of FBI. :mad:

1. You are not an FBI agent/officer
2. You are not a coroner/MD/Medical Examiner
3. You are not a crime scene investigator
4. You are not a crash scene investigator

SO, where do you get off setting standards for what should or should not have been done. Where do you get off calling their job sloppy because it doesnt meet your uneducated, uninformed standards. Where do you get off accusing the FBI of not recording this, or not examining this, JUST BECAUSE you haven't been given access to such things.

Your comments are horrible. I hope one day you run into a relative of one of the plane victims while you are shooting your mouth off like this, and I hope he or she slaps you in the face hard enough to make you hurt.

TAM:)

Heiwa

6th August 2007, 01:52 PM

Your comments are horrible. I hope one day you run into a relative of one of the plane victims while you are shooting your mouth off like this, and I hope he or she slaps you in the face hard enough to make you hurt.

TAM:)

Why are they horrible? And only worth a little slap in the face of a relative? Don't answer.

It seems our friendly and lively discussion how to do a proper job is transmuting. Maybe somebody has enjoyed it? Bye, bye.

T.A.M.

6th August 2007, 01:57 PM

don't let the door hit you...too hard.

TAM

twinstead

6th August 2007, 05:00 PM

Why are they horrible? And only worth a little slap in the face of a relative? Don't answer.

It seems our friendly and lively discussion how to do a proper job is transmuting. Maybe somebody has enjoyed it? Bye, bye.

Why are they horrible? Are you kidding? Don't you realize the implications of your theory? Don't you know the implications of claiming evidence is faked or planted in a plot to kill thousands of innocent people?

It means that you are accusing those who handled that evidence of being complicit in mass murder ON THE SLIMMEST OF EVIDENCE!

That, sir, is what is horrible. To you, you are simply accusing a THING, the Man, the evil government, of a heinous crime. But that's not true. The government is made up of people. Regular people just like you and I.

First responders, DNA specialists, volunteers who picked up body parts in Shanksville, etc. Families of the victims who received phone calls from them just before they died. These are the people you are accusing of either being 'in on it', or idiots.

So, the horrible part still stands. You come on this board an obvious blind ideologue, and you leave some kind of martyr you can tell all your conspiracist buddies about how mistreated you were by the big, bad debunkers.

I say good riddance!

T.A.M.

6th August 2007, 05:05 PM

I think I hurt his feelings when I DARED to put a real human face to the whole thing...that is something they seem to readily forget.

TAM:)

twinstead

6th August 2007, 05:12 PM

I think I hurt his feelings when I DARED to put a real human face to the whole thing...that is something they seem to readily forget.

TAM:)

Almost to a man they forget that. They're like little kids with no thoughts at all about the consequences and ramifications of their little theories

Belz...

7th August 2007, 05:29 AM

Let's take the dead bodies in Pentagon as an example. How did they die? Apart from recording their locations in the building and the surroundings according normal FBI procedures I would recommend an autopsy of every body (also normal FBI procedure).

Heiwa, please tell me WHY you'd think such an autopsy would be required. Since we know a plane with passengers on it crashed into a building with people in it, why would checking the cause of death be that important ?

Then I would know if they died from suffocation/smoke inhalation, being knocked out by falling debris, being blasted by an explosive device, etc.

Again, why is it important. I'm sure the families wouldn't care about the EXACT cause of death.

I assume some victims had been blown to pieces and evaporated and could not be located. It seems no autopsies were done by FBI & Co so we do not know how they died. Why? Because I assume some bodies can be shown to have died due to an explosive device in the building!!

Heiwa, think about this. You assume that there was an explosive device in the building, and you're using it to explain the lack of autopsies done on those corpses, who in turn are used to prove that there was an explosive device.

That's circular reasoning, by the way, and it's a big logical error on your part.

A sudden explosion, white water vapour developing and a bright yellow fire ball expanding from inside indicating very high temperature. It could never have been caused by jet fuel flying in from outside!

Why not ? Jet fuel is, by definition, flammable and explosive.

Only a heavy explosive device could have caused it - probably planted in the building.

Please explain why the fuel is not a good candidate for that.

I would evidently, after taken care of the dead bodies as outlined above, record, document, examine the seats/belts to find out how they survived the crash.

Are you a crash investigator ? I don't think so. So pay attention: People who do this regularily know what can and does survive crashes in certain instances. They aren't surprised in the least that those pieces of wreckage survived. Why should you ?

According various sources a certain Mme Barbara O, unfortunate A77 passenger, should have been found inside the Pentagon. I doubt it very much. What evidence exists? Some DNA analyzed by Pentagon. No autopsy. I am not convinced. I am perplexed by the sloppy work of FBI.

You're being pig-headed for no reason. Why is DNA evidence insufficient ? How would an autopsy help identify the body more than DNA ? It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you are placing an unreasonable burden of proof on the authorities, presumably because you have an already pre-determined conclusion that you don't wish to see challenged.

Gravy

7th August 2007, 05:49 AM

"When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.

'It was the worst thing you can imagine,' said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. 'I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside.' " http://tinyurl.com/kth3m
(http://tinyurl.com/kth3m)

"I did see airplane seats and a corpse still strapped to one of the seats."
Capt. Jim Ingledue, Virginia Beach Fire Dept. Source (http://www.rense.com/general68/pass.htm)

Firefighters Carlton Burkhammer and Brian Moravitz "spotted an intact seat from the plane's cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached." Source (http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm%20)

“We discovered cockpit wreckage at our feet while attempting to rescue people from a Navy operations area.” Source (http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon-email_20020316.html)

Much more here (http://pages.google.com/edit/WTC7Lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary?authtoken=aa23d 198743b479abcc878347c31e1e454056dd2).

(http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon-email_20020316.html)

Panoply_Prefect

7th August 2007, 06:10 AM

Gravy

7th August 2007, 06:40 AM

As with photos, Heiwa does not recognize interviews in newspapers as evidence (in fact over at the swedish board Flashback.info he has just declared that Jref debaters only could produce "newspaper canards" as proof of burned bodies in seats). What exactly would constitute evidence that he would accept is at the moment unclear. But I imagine if anyone would present anything new, his definition of "valid evidence" would quickly change.These people are easy to get in touch with. Isn't it interesting that these cowards don't have the guts to tell the first responders and investigators what they think, to their faces? I guess they're afraid of being Buzz Aldrined, but you know what? The people they're too cowardly to confront tend to be quite cool under pressure. They'd probably just calmly explain what their roles and procedures were, as they've done with me. I'll tell you this: the people who collected and processed those human remains took their jobs very seriously.

The truth burns 9/11 creeps like sunlight burns a vampire.

stateofgrace

7th August 2007, 07:00 AM

Why are they horrible? And only worth a little slap in the face of a relative? Don't answer.

It seems our friendly and lively discussion how to do a proper job is transmuting. Maybe somebody has enjoyed it? Bye, bye.

You deserve so much more than a slap in the face sunbeam, but forum rules prevent me from stating exactly what you deserve.

YOU an unqualified nobody has the shear nerve to make wild assumptions based on the work of those people that were there and had dreadful task of going through the aftermath of a plane crash. A plane that carried real people on was crashed into the side of a building that was full of real people and you whinge and moan that you have not seen photographs of the dead.

YOU assume that that the people who were there and did all them could to help on that dreadful day owe you anything. You are owed nothing; you deserve nothing other than utter contempt for your unqualified nonsense.

YOU who had not even done any research and did not even know there were pictures that had been released to the public showing the dead honestly believe you are in any sort of position to cast your expert opinion on the way this situation was dealt with. This same complete nobody who makes wild assumptions that the fires were not hot enough inside the towers. So the reason people jumped to the deaths is because they saw the other tower collapse.

YOU are not worth the time of the day and it is very rare I actually shake with anger when I post, this is one of those rare occasions. I truly pity you, you insignificant gob Shiate. You sir are a ghoul, an indifference, insignificant, unqualified, unreserved ghoul who uses this and the poor victims who were caught up in it to fuel your own ego. Take your unqualified ego and wild assumptions else where.

This is nothing more repugant in this life that individuals who through some perverse sense of self gratification wishes to see graphic and distributing pictures of those that died and would wish to use the same pictures to condemn those who where there and experienced the reality behind those pictures. There are things in this life that are best left unseen, that are best kept from ghouls like you.

YOU have my unreserved contempt.

( I apologies to every other member who has tried reasoning with this individual for my outburst, I see no point in further fuelling his ego and will withdraw from this thread)

Heiwa

7th August 2007, 09:59 AM

Heiwa, please tell me WHY you'd think such an autopsy would be required. Since we know a plane with passengers on it crashed into a building with people in it, why would checking the cause of death be that important ?

Why not ? Jet fuel is, by definition, flammable and explosive.

Please explain why the fuel is not a good candidate for that.

Autopises establishes how persons died; Suffocation, smoke inhalation, knocked down by some debris or flying object, subject to en explosion, being shot, murdered with knife and so on. The victims in pentagon died in different ways - it was not a plane hitting them causing their deaths in most cases - and the exact causes are of interest to exclude a bomb explosion as cause.

No, jet fuel is not explosive - it is a combustible. It burns much slower than real explosives and causes a rather slow shock wave. Not even jet fuel gases mixed with air (used in jet engines) are explosive - they burn fast but not as fast as explosives that detonate causing a very fast shockwave.

Experts suggest what we saw at pentagon was a detonation caused by explosives and not a fire ball of jetfuel. http://www.voltairenet.org/article139203.html#article139203 .

Note the difference with WTC - no detonation when the plane impacts - just a fire ball. Real detonations are heard when the towers fall - a clear sign of controlled demolition.

Many persons in pentagon assume it was a detonation inside pentagon. The shock/heat wave proceeded through the corridors far away from the impact point. It would not have happened with a plane crashing into the ground floor releasing jet fuel.

Panoply_Prefect

7th August 2007, 10:14 AM

Experts suggest what we saw at pentagon was a detonation caused by explosives and not a fire ball of jetfuel. http://www.voltairenet.org/article139203.html#article139203 .

Experts? Who but that french army officer? And as I understand it he claims it was a missile:

This photo, and the effects described in the official version, lead me therefore to think that the detonation that struck the building was that of a high-powered hollow charge used to destroy hardened buildings and carried by an aerial vehicle, a missile.This photo, and the effects described in the official version, lead me therefore to think that the detonation that struck the building was that of a high-powered hollow charge used to destroy hardened buildings and carried by an aerial vehicle, a missile.

Doesn't quite support your stance that it was pre-planted explosives inside the building.

Btw, is he the same Pierre-Henri Bunel that 2001 was convicted for treason (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1706341.stm)(for selling NATO-secrets to the Serbian government in 1998) by French authorities?

/S

Belz...

7th August 2007, 10:16 AM

Autopises establishes how persons died; Suffocation, smoke inhalation, knocked down by some debris or flying object, subject to en explosion, being shot, murdered with knife and so on. The victims in pentagon died in different ways - it was not a plane hitting them causing their deaths in most cases - and the exact causes are of interest to exclude a bomb explosion as cause.

I didn't ask you to repeat your earlier claim, Heiwa. I asked you why you would want an autopsy since we have every reason to believe that the airliner crash killed these poor people.

What makes you think that there is another possible cause for their death ?

No, jet fuel is not explosive - it is a combustible.

Not explosive ? Have you seen 175 hit 2 WTC ?

Experts suggest what we saw at pentagon was a detonation caused by explosives and not a fire ball of jetfuel. http://www.voltairenet.org/article139203.html#article139203 .

That's singular, Heiwa.

Note the difference with WTC - no detonation when the plane impacts - just a fire ball. Real detonations are heard when the towers fall - a clear sign of controlled demolition.

How can you tell there was a "detonation" ?

Many persons in pentagon assume it was a detonation inside pentagon.

That's your proof ? People assume it ?

Do you have anything besides speculation, Heiwa ? This is getting tiresome.

funk de fino

7th August 2007, 10:21 AM

T.A.M.

7th August 2007, 10:23 AM

Autopises establishes how persons died; Suffocation, smoke inhalation, knocked down by some debris or flying object, subject to en explosion, being shot, murdered with knife and so on. The victims in pentagon died in different ways - it was not a plane hitting them causing their deaths in most cases - and the exact causes are of interest to exclude a bomb explosion as cause.

No, jet fuel is not explosive - it is a combustible. It burns much slower than real explosives and causes a rather slow shock wave. Not even jet fuel gases mixed with air (used in jet engines) are explosive - they burn fast but not as fast as explosives that detonate causing a very fast shockwave.

Experts suggest what we saw at pentagon was a detonation caused by explosives and not a fire ball of jetfuel. http://www.voltairenet.org/article139203.html#article139203 .

Note the difference with WTC - no detonation when the plane impacts - just a fire ball. Real detonations are heard when the towers fall - a clear sign of controlled demolition.

Many persons in pentagon assume it was a detonation inside pentagon. The shock/heat wave proceeded through the corridors far away from the impact point. It would not have happened with a plane crashing into the ground floor releasing jet fuel.

1. I thought you had left?

2, Your so called expert is a former Army artillery Officer. This may, MAY, qualify him to tell us what an explosive detonation looks like, but HOW ON GODS EARTH can he tell us what jetliner full of fuel impacting on concrete at 500mph should look like...hmmm???

3. The jet fuel was under pressure until the moment of impact. It then was whipped out and about at 500 mph. And now you are telling us based on the comments of a military artillery officer, that the explosion we saw at the Pentagon COULD NOT have come from a jet airliner full of fuel crashing there.

Yes indeed, another brilliant researcher.

TAM:)

Heiwa

7th August 2007, 12:07 PM

1. I thought you had left?

3. The jet fuel was under pressure until the moment of impact. It then was whipped out and about at 500 mph. And now you are telling us based on the comments of a military artillery officer, that the explosion we saw at the Pentagon COULD NOT have come from a jet airliner full of fuel crashing there.

Yes indeed, another brilliant researcher.

TAM:)

1. I am still around in the cyber space.

3. No, the combustible jet fuel was not under any pressure inside the tanks. It was just resting there, like inside any other fuel container. The walls of this container was made of aluminium of various thickness depending on location. Some walls had other purposes, e.g. being wings to fly on.

The interesting thing is that this or these containers then allegedly penetrated a solid, reinforced concrete wall (OK, it is full of windows some of which the panes are not broken) at high speed - 500 mph - and spills out the fuel just inside at speed 0. And then it ignites. No fuel spills out on the outside lawn through the big hole in the wall made by the containers. Only papers blown out through the windows are seen on the lawn (and some parts of a parked helicopter that blow up on the outside). I would of course have expected that some jet fuel would also would have blown out on the lawn and burnt there but ... paranormally ... all fuel remained inside.

When jet fuel burns in open air it produces black smoke full of greasy soot and this soot attaches to walls and what remains. The inside of pentagon should therefore be full of soot. But all fire fighters messing around in the debris remain pretty clean. Photos show destroyed but CLEAN rooms. No greasy soot. My interpretation of the photo evidence is that most damages were caused by an explosive device that detonated inside the building at locally very high temperature (no greasy soot) and that remaining damages were caused by the hot shock wave expanding through corridors and normal fires of furniture and interior wooden walls, doors, etc. No jet fuel.

Thanks for calling me a brilliant researcher. FBI really needs some outside help. Some fire fighters reported they found passengers strapped into seats in pentagon and told this to the media ... but when FBI arrived they didn't find them or the seats. This is paranormal. Probably an inside job. No plane full of jet fuel hitting pentagon from outside.

funk de fino

7th August 2007, 12:36 PM

1. I am still around in the cyber space.

3. No, the combustible jet fuel was not under any pressure inside the tanks. It was just resting there, like inside any other fuel container. The walls of this container was made of aluminium of various thickness depending on location. Some walls had other purposes, e.g. being wings to fly on.

The interesting thing is that this or these containers then allegedly penetrated a solid, reinforced concrete wall (OK, it is full of windows some of which the panes are not broken) at high speed - 500 mph - and spills out the fuel just inside at speed 0. And then it ignites. No fuel spills out on the outside lawn through the big hole in the wall made by the containers. Only papers blown out through the windows are seen on the lawn (and some parts of a parked helicopter that blow up on the outside). I would of course have expected that some jet fuel would also would have blown out on the lawn and burnt there but ... paranormally ... all fuel remained inside.

When jet fuel burns in open air it produces black smoke full of greasy soot and this soot attaches to walls and what remains. The inside of pentagon should therefore be full of soot. But all fire fighters messing around in the debris remain pretty clean. Photos show destroyed but CLEAN rooms. No greasy soot. My interpretation of the photo evidence is that most damages were caused by an explosive device that detonated inside the building at locally very high temperature (no greasy soot) and that remaining damages were caused by the hot shock wave expanding through corridors and normal fires of furniture and interior wooden walls, doors, etc. No jet fuel.

Thanks for calling me a brilliant researcher. FBI really needs some outside help. Some fire fighters reported they found passengers strapped into seats in pentagon and told this to the media ... but when FBI arrived they didn't find them or the seats. This is paranormal. Probably an inside job. No plane full of jet fuel hitting pentagon from outside.

1. how does the fuel get moved around the tanks then Einstein?

3. have you seen fuel cells from aircraft before

2. you missed that one?

as for the rest of your diatribe, mentally challenged would best describe it, especially the "speed 0" part

you know there is a kind of superiority in europe about americans because of the rednecks and hicks and huge fat people we see on our television but when you see the amount of truthers who are europeans and the lack of intelligence that they constantly display i would place them below the very people from the states that they mock

its a very stereotypical view of the dumb fat yank (which if you ever go to manhattan is quite quickly dispelled) and one which is quite widespread but unfair

why? because at least the rednecks, hicks and fat people are not dishonest people, thats just the way they are, they dont pretend they are something they are not

most of the truthers are the most dishonest, unsociable, stupid and ignorant people you can ever come across as well as being the biggest set of cowards imaginable

ps did you have a look at the fuel air bomb llink?

Zorglub

7th August 2007, 12:41 PM

Many persons in pentagon assume it was a detonation inside pentagon. The shock/heat wave proceeded through the corridors far away from the impact point. It would not have happened with a plane crashing into the ground floor releasing jet fuel.
FFS stop reffering to anonymous groups of people you claim support your theory. Provide a link or name them directly. And you cannot refer to "internet" as your primary source of evidence.

beachnut

7th August 2007, 12:42 PM

1. I am still around in the cyber space.

3. No, the combustible jet fuel was not under any pressure inside the tanks. It was just resting there, like inside any other fuel container. The walls of this container was made of aluminium of various thickness depending on location. Some walls had other purposes, e.g. being wings to fly on.

The interesting thing is that this or these containers then allegedly penetrated a solid, reinforced concrete wall (OK, it is full of windows some of which the panes are not broken) at high speed - 500 mph - and spills out the fuel just inside at speed 0. And then it ignites. No fuel spills out on the outside lawn through the big hole in the wall made by the containers. Only papers blown out through the windows are seen on the lawn (and some parts of a parked helicopter that blow up on the outside). I would of course have expected that some jet fuel would also would have blown out on the lawn and burnt there but ... paranormally ... all fuel remained inside.

When jet fuel burns in open air it produces black smoke full of greasy soot and this soot attaches to walls and what remains. The inside of pentagon should therefore be full of soot. But all fire fighters messing around in the debris remain pretty clean. Photos show destroyed but CLEAN rooms. No greasy soot. My interpretation of the photo evidence is that most damages were caused by an explosive device that detonated inside the building at locally very high temperature (no greasy soot) and that remaining damages were caused by the hot shock wave expanding through corridors and normal fires of furniture and interior wooden walls, doors, etc. No jet fuel.

Thanks for calling me a brilliant researcher. FBI really needs some outside help. Some fire fighters reported they found passengers strapped into seats in pentagon and told this to the media ... but when FBI arrived they didn't find them or the seats. This is paranormal. Probably an inside job. No plane full of jet fuel hitting pentagon from outside.
It is called water. Your statement is moronic, your research capabilities proven nil by this very post. Keep up the lies of 9/11 truth with your posts and you will be relegated to the fringe nut case cause of 9/11 truth, which should be "9/11 Lies buy Nuts"

Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, you see what you get with a plane doing 473 KIAS. Sadly you are unable to reason and think rationally about 9/11 and make up fiction like this post. What a bunch of silly tripe, you are so disgusting making up stuff about my fellow soldiers and my fellow citizens killed on 9/11. Thanks so much for taking the time to be disrespectful, I hope I can do the same for you.

T.A.M.

7th August 2007, 12:50 PM

1. how does the fuel get moved around the tanks then Einstein?

Yes I found it rather strange that he thinks the gas just sits there...lol

TAM:)

Corsair 115

7th August 2007, 12:56 PM

No, jet fuel is not explosive - it is a combustible. It burns much slower than real explosives and causes a rather slow shock wave. Not even jet fuel gases mixed with air (used in jet engines) are explosive - they burn fast but not as fast as explosives that detonate causing a very fast shockwave. Gee, then why is it in the numerous film and video available of aircraft crashes — be they civilian aviation accidents or crashes at air shows — do the impacts make for some impressive and sometimes spectacular explosions?

Note the difference with WTC - no detonation when the plane impacts - just a fire ball. Real detonations are heard when the towers fall - a clear sign of controlled demolition.Really? On which video of the collapse do you hear clear sounds of demolition charges going off? I ask because I suspect you're the only one hearing such noises.

There was a video of the collapse taken by a doctor not far from the towers. I can't recall if he captured both collapses on his camcorder, but he definitely caught the second collapse. He had gone down to the WTC area that day to help in the treatment of the injured. As the second collapse started, he caught it on his camera, then at the last moment, ducked behind a parked car as the dust cloud came pouring over and around him. His camera was on the entire time, including afterwards. It's a single long, unbroken shot.

The thing which struck me about this video was the noise of the collapse - it was a loud, continuous roar, sort of like the rumble of a freight train. There was definitely NO sounds of anything like the distinct, sharp sounds of explosive charges going off. Just a long, continuous rumble as the building crashed to the ground.

I can't recall the name of the doctor, but his footage and his story aired on CNN either the first or second day after 9/11.

Heiwa

7th August 2007, 01:21 PM

you know there is a kind of superiority in europe about americans because of the rednecks and hicks and huge fat people we see on our television but when you see the amount of truthers who are europeans and the lack of intelligence that they constantly display i would place them below the very people from the states that they mock

its a very stereotypical view of the dumb fat yank (which if you ever go to manhattan is quite quickly dispelled) and one which is quite widespread but unfair

why? because at least the rednecks, hicks and fat people are not dishonest people, thats just the way they are, they dont pretend they are something they are not

most of the truthers are the most dishonest, unsociable, stupid and ignorant people you can ever come across as well as being the biggest set of cowards imaginable.

Maybe you have a point at last? Anyway, one American told me once a long time ago: "Under the American system, officers and officials are free to make their opinions known to their superiors - up to the point where policy is definitely decided. After that everybody is expected to support policy to the best of his/her ability."
You are trying hard, but you are not convincing. You are not fighting for peace, freedom and justice. You are just defending policy.

Heiwa

7th August 2007, 01:33 PM

1. how does the fuel get moved around the tanks then Einstein?

It remains there under no pressure. When you need it, a pump moves it to the engines. Similar to a car. No magic there. The mystery is how the fuel in its fragile tank penetrates a concrete wall without spilling out.

Heiwa

7th August 2007, 01:36 PM

Gee, then why is it in the numerous film and video available of aircraft crashes — be they civilian aviation accidents or crashes at air shows — do the impacts make for some impressive and sometimes spectacular explosions?

They are not detonations. Just fuel spilling out and burning. No magic.

Corsair 115

7th August 2007, 01:44 PM

They are not detonations. Just fuel spilling out and burning. No magic.You have a peculiar defintion of explosion. Or you have seen little footage of actual aircraft crashes.

What about the supposed noises of demolition charges going off during the collapse? Are you going to support that claim of yours with some evidence?

funk de fino

7th August 2007, 02:24 PM

It remains there under no pressure. When you need it, a pump moves it to the engines. Similar to a car. No magic there. The mystery is how the fuel in its fragile tank penetrates a concrete wall without spilling out.

oh really, one pump to move it from a tank to the engines? and the pump does not pressurise it?

how many tanks are on one of these airliners? and again have you seen one?

how do we get it from tank to tank and then to the engine?

who said it did not spill out? and who said it penetrated the wall?

why did you not look at the fuel air bomb site and comment on the explosions they give you?

funk de fino

7th August 2007, 02:28 PM

You are trying hard, but you are not convincing. You are not fighting for peace, freedom and justice. You are just defending policy.

I am not fighting for anything, i am merely pointing out your lies and mistakes

show me where i am defending any policy?

and before you start i am not american

and you are fighting for nothing, you are posting on an internet site the same as me, except you are a coward who will do nothing else about your dishonest and disgusting claims

stateofgrace

7th August 2007, 05:55 PM

Thanks for calling me a brilliant researcher.

It was a P*** take, not meant to be taken seriously.

Belz...

8th August 2007, 05:29 AM

1. I am still around in the cyber space.

People still call it that ?

The interesting thing is that this or these containers then allegedly penetrated a solid, reinforced concrete wall (OK, it is full of windows some of which the panes are not broken)

Heiwa, it's getting to be very depressing how truthers fail to make the slightest amount of research in 9/11-related fields. Why don't you do some looking around or googling in high-speed impacts and ballistics ?

and spills out the fuel just inside at speed 0.

Now, what in the blue hell's name makes you think it has a speed of zero ? The fuel is going at the same speed as the plane.

I would of course have expected that some jet fuel would also would have blown out on the lawn and burnt there but ... paranormally ... all fuel remained inside.

Paranormally ? That's because you have no idea what you're talking about. Why would the fuel blow out on the lawn when it just exploded into a fireball ?

When jet fuel burns in open air it produces black smoke full of greasy soot and this soot attaches to walls and what remains.

Only when it burns slowly, Heiwa. Gosh.

My interpretation of the photo evidence is...

...Irrelevant

that most damages were caused by an explosive device that detonated inside the building at locally very high temperature (no greasy soot)

That doesn't even make any sense. Since when are explosive devices "hot" ?

and that remaining damages were caused by the hot shock wave expanding through corridors and normal fires of furniture and interior wooden walls, doors, etc. No jet fuel.

What about the smell of jet fuel reported ?

FBI really needs some outside help.

:dl:

Yeah, the FBI needs help from people who don't know squat about anything.

This is paranormal. Probably an inside job.

Non sequitur.

Belz...

8th August 2007, 05:33 AM

It remains there under no pressure. When you need it, a pump moves it to the engines. Similar to a car. No magic there. The mystery is how the fuel in its fragile tank penetrates a concrete wall without spilling out.

It did spill out.

You are just defending policy.

Blah, blah, blah. Do you have any evidence of your claims ? Or are you just going to use insults, from now on ?

They are not detonations. Just fuel spilling out and burning.

Yeah. Burning VERY rapidly. Explosively so. What's your definition of an explosion ?

Panoply_Prefect

8th August 2007, 05:57 AM

Here's a question Heiwa, since I didn't quite understand your stance: Was it, in your opinion a) pre-planted explosives, or b) a missile that hit the Pentagon?

Heiwa

8th August 2007, 06:41 AM

Here's a question Heiwa, since I didn't quite understand your stance: Was it, in your opinion a) pre-planted explosives, or b) a missile that hit the Pentagon?

Based on observations of damages and lack of jet fuel I would suggest the explosive charges were pre-planted on the outside of the E wall directed inwards. But there could have been more charges, e.g. at the C wall. A missile is too complicated (how/where from to launch it?). Keep it simple.

So no plane flying in low over the lawn! It was only a deception to explain the explosion.

funk de fino

8th August 2007, 06:49 AM

Panoply_Prefect

8th August 2007, 08:32 AM

Based on observations of damages and lack of jet fuel I would suggest the explosive charges were pre-planted on the outside of the E wall directed inwards. But there could have been more charges, e.g. at the C wall. A missile is too complicated (how/where from to launch it?). Keep it simple.

Then why did you use a person that claimed a missile hit the Pentagon as evidence of pre-planded explosives (my bolding in all quotes):

Experts suggest what we saw at pentagon was a detonation caused by explosives and not a fire ball of jetfuel. http://www.voltairenet.org/article13...#article139203 (http://www.voltairenet.org/article139203.html#article139203) .

Note the difference with WTC - no detonation when the plane impacts - just a fire ball. Real detonations are heard when the towers fall - a clear sign of controlled demolition.

Many persons in pentagon assume it was a detonation inside pentagon. The shock/heat wave proceeded through the corridors far away from the impact point. It would not have happened with a plane crashing into the ground floor releasing jet fuel.

From your source:

The examination of this photo alone already suggests a singleengine flying vehicle much smaller in size than an airliner.
(...)

The flying device that struck the Department of Defense has, at first sight, nothing to do with the airliner of the official version.
(...)

So the vehicle that carried the charge that weakened the pillars struck lower than an enormous airliner would have done. And r refer you back to the first photographs studied on which we could see the trail of smoke from a propulsion unit very close to the ground.

This photo, and the effects described in the official version, lead me therefore to think that the detonation that struck the building was that of a high-powered hollow charge used to destroy hardened buildings and carried by an aerial vehicle, a missile.

This looks a bit, to me, like the time (http://www.flashback.info/showpost.php?p=7629721&postcount=4054) you were asked to provide links to "CD Experts that agree that WTC were brought down by CD", whereupon you produced the video with Danny Jowenko, where he very clearly stated the exact opposite.

Belz...

8th August 2007, 10:15 AM

Heiwa

8th August 2007, 11:13 AM

Keep it simple ?

You're saying that people, for some reason, planted an explosive device in the Pentagon, that nobody noticed this, that there is no physical evidence of explosives or detonators, that nobody has spilled the beans, that no expert claims this, and that the plane didn't hit the building but somehow vanished into this air over Washington, D.C....

And then you're asking us to keep it simple ?

Gangsters, we are talking about gangsters, albeit quite clever - not normal people. And this is a friendly discussion forum about scepticism. Either you believe official policy or not. No reason to get upset and obnoxious about that for certain participants. I am not nasty, just curious. And peaceful. So if it were not OBL with planes, how could some other gangsters do it and blame it on OBL? I propose alternative ideas and support others with similar objectives to encourage friendly discussion.

What's really wrong with one or more explosive devices in the outside wall of pentagon to cause the damages observed? The gangsters had already blown up WTC and everybody was confused. What was going on? Aha, another (?) plane had crashed in pentagon. Easy to swallow. And not too difficult to arrange. And lots of people will believe the BS and participate to prove it.

But where is the evidence? Come on! Give me some identified air plane parts! Show me the unfortunate passengers strapped in their seats! Don't give me BS. Keep it simple! Give me some real evidence that AA77 crashed in pentagon. Then I will stop thinking about how it could have been/was done by other gangsters.

So how was it done? The wall had been recently upgraded/reinforced for reasons I cannot fathom. Why reinforce an office building outside wall as a bunker??? Against an attack? In the middle of DC? It is obtuse. I assume the explosive devices were fitted in the pentagon wall at the time of the upgrading! I assume security was slack then. Nobody expected the gangsters to prepare the wall then. The whole 9/11 was very well prepared, pre-planned and executed. And a assume by gangsters. Not OBL in a cave somewhere. The WTCs were similarly prepared.

You do not have to be Einstein to imagine how it was done. Just use your imagination and participate in friendly discussions. Be sceptical.

But I agree! The gangsters are still around and do not like sceptical people like me. They think they can scare me and all others. They apparently scared many to adhere to policy and produce 'evidence' supporting them. But not me.

Panoply_Prefect

8th August 2007, 11:30 AM

Give me some real evidence that AA77 crashed in pentagon.

Give me some real evidence it was actually the Pentagon that was attacked, and not some photoshopped model. Fake! It was obviously a hoax perpertrated by the american government to get the world's attention. Sheeple! I've seen pictures of the Pentagon and its obviously unharmed. No evidence!

funk de fino

8th August 2007, 11:45 AM

Hiewa - Respond to post #620

You propose alternative ideas with no evidence and ignore questions as well as ignore facts and you are not being friendly you are being very nasty and ignorant

What would you take as evidence that a part at the Pentagon was from a 757?

Zorglub

8th August 2007, 12:01 PM

What's really wrong with one or more explosive devices in the outside wall of pentagon to cause the damages observed? The gangsters had already blown up WTC and everybody was confused. What was going on? Aha, another (?) plane had crashed in pentagon. Easy to swallow. And not too difficult to arrange. And lots of people will believe the BS and participate to prove it. Instead of crashing another plane it´s way easier to plant unprovable explosives inside the walls? Oh wait. I forgot. There were no planes in WTC either.

But where is the evidence? Come on! Give me some identified air plane parts! Show me the unfortunate passengers strapped in their seats! Don't give me BS. Keep it simple! Give me some real evidence that AA77 crashed in pentagon. Then I will stop thinking about how it could have been/was done by other gangsters. And if there were official evidence that linked every single piece of debris to AA77 you would believe this? You would accept the evidence and lay down your arms (a bb-gun). You would NOT say that the evidence cleary is faked by the man?
My conviction is that there is no evidence you would belive in. Why you even try to withhold a facade of yourself as the truth seeking world-citizen, just asking questions, is beyond my understanding.

So how was it done? The wall had been recently upgraded/reinforced for reasons I cannot fathom. Why reinforce an office building outside wall as a bunker??? Against an attack? In the middle of DC? It is obtuse. I assume the explosive devices were fitted in the pentagon wall at the time of the upgrading! I assume security was slack then. Nobody expected the gangsters to prepare the wall then. The whole 9/11 was very well prepared, pre-planned and executed. And a assume by gangsters. Not OBL in a cave somewhere. The WTCs were similarly prepared. No there is a lot you cannot fathom, agreed.
So instead of "assuming". Can you for once bring up som evidence. Bring us one single expert that provides us with a schematics of how the bombs were rigged. There must be one (1) demolition expert that will support this theory, right?

You do not have to be Einstein to imagine how it was done. No, all youneed is a lack of logic and understanding.Just use your imagination and participate in friendly discussions. Be sceptical. See, that is your problem. Your imagination has won over your grip of the real world. I say STOP using your imagination. It´s bad for your brains.

But I agree! The gangsters are still around and do not like sceptical people like me. They think they can scare me and all others. Now see what your imagination just did to you. Relax, they do not want to scare you. They are not afraid of you. If "they" even have noticed you they´re quite happy that you bring ridicule to the truthers movement. This is not imagination. It´s paranoia.They apparently scared many to adhere to policy and produce 'evidence' supporting them. But not me. Now, just because you cannot find support from the expertise doesn´t mean that they have met "the man". Actually, chances are that they simply do not agree with your theories.

Heiwa

8th August 2007, 01:09 PM

Belz...

8th August 2007, 01:17 PM

Gangsters, we are talking about gangsters, albeit quite clever - not normal people.

Gangsters still have human failings, Heiwa. Please answer my question, now.

Either you believe official policy or not.

"With me or against me" mentality.

No reason to get upset and obnoxious about that for certain participants. I am not nasty, just curious. And peaceful.

Good, then you'll have no problem answering my question.

So if it were not OBL with planes, how could some other gangsters do it and blame it on OBL?

Begging the question.

What's really wrong with one or more explosive devices in the outside wall of pentagon to cause the damages observed?

It's an unnecessary entity that's not supported by evidence. That's what's wrong with it.

The gangsters had already blown up WTC and everybody was confused.

Begging the question.

What was going on? Aha, another (?) plane had crashed in pentagon. Easy to swallow. And not too difficult to arrange.

Indeed, just crash a REAL plane into it.

But where is the evidence? Come on! Give me some identified air plane parts!

Your incredulity does not negate the documented evidence, Heiwa.

The wall had been recently upgraded/reinforced for reasons I cannot fathom.

Why can't you fathom them ?

I assume the explosive devices were fitted in the pentagon wall at the time of the upgrading!

Yes, indeed. That's the right word: assume.

And a assume by gangsters. Not OBL in a cave somewhere. The WTCs were similarly prepared.

That's all fine until you ask for evidence.

You do not have to be Einstein to imagine how it was done.

Of course. Einstein wouldn't believe that crap.

Just use your imagination and participate in friendly discussions. Be sceptical.

Skepticism and denial are two different things.

They think they can scare me and all others. They apparently scared many to adhere to policy and produce 'evidence' supporting them. But not me.

Behind your anonymity, that's easy to say, especially since those gangsters don't exist. That's mighty big of you.

funk de fino

8th August 2007, 01:39 PM

Gents,

we are friendly discussing alternatives how 9/11 was carried out. Don't ask me for evidence of the pentagon wall. This is FBI's jobb. Did they ever look for any evidence that explosives were not put in the wall? They seem scared. They just produce BS evidence for the official policy scenario. But ... and it is clear ... they cannot produce one piece of AA77 at pentagon. Or seats with passengers. It is much easier to plant the latter lie in the media and then pass it on as truth. But only fools believe that. And no autopsies. Sorry gents, my opinion is that you are deceived. A contributing factor is scare. But that is OT. Please - provide some real evidence that AA77 crashed in pentagon. No more eye witnesses, no more newspaper clippings - produce hard facts.

dont run away and ignore questions from people?

answer previous posts

then tell me what damaged the lamposts at the pentagon?

and how the explosives mounted on the outside of the wall could blast into the pentagon and not away?

if you ignore these questions and my previous ones you are a coward and i will waste no further time on you

Zorglub

8th August 2007, 02:23 PM

Gents,

we are friendly discussing alternatives how 9/11 was carried out. Don't ask me for evidence of the pentagon wall.I "assume" this means you have come to terms with the real world and will no longer prevail in your attempts to prove AA77 never hit the Pentagon? If you continue to support the NPL-theory I will continue to ask for evidence supporting your claims. This is FBI's jobb.No. They are perfectly fine with the evidence supporting AA77 actually hit the Pentagon. No need to bring forth evidence for every weird idea man can possible think of. As has been claimed before they also haven´t proved that the pentagon WAS hit.T Did they ever look for any evidence that explosives were not put in the wall? No. They didn´t look for Jimmy Hoffa or a soujuz capsule either. Your point is?They seem scared. No. They ignore you and your companions. Big difference.They just produce BS evidence for the official policy scenario.No. They provide evidencew. You do not. But ... and it is clear ... they cannot produce one piece of AA77 at pentagon. Or seats with passengers.Neither have they provided any evidence that proves that the pentagon actually was hit. It is much easier to plant the latter lie in the media and then pass it on as truth. But only fools believe that. I´ll say you have the situation in the wrong order. And no autopsies. Sorry gents, my opinion is that you are deceived. My opinion is forbidden to express in this forum.A contributing factor is scare. Learn to see the difference between paranoia and scare. But that is OT. No. That is the core point in your attempts to keep a bursting bubble of lies from not bursting.. No more eye witnesses, no more newspaper clippings - produce hard facts. Why don´t you start?

Alt+F4

8th August 2007, 02:36 PM

Gangsters, we are talking about gangsters, albeit quite clever - not normal people.

Mafia gangsters or gangsta rappers?

Alt+F4

8th August 2007, 02:41 PM

And no autopsies.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? All but one of the victims at the Pentagon was positively identified.

Panoply_Prefect

8th August 2007, 02:50 PM

Gents,

we are friendly discussing alternatives how 9/11 was carried out. Don't ask me for evidence of the pentagon wall.

Yeah, god forbid you'd have to support anything you pull out of your truther-hat...

Did they ever look for any evidence that explosives were not put in the wall?

Did they ever look for evidence that liquid cheese wasn't the force that made those walls explode? And again, did they ever take any documented samples from the building itself?

They seem scared.

How do you recon? Because they don't invite every internet-googler out there to participate in their investigations?

You do realise that you are just jumping from ice floe to ice floe to avoid drowning?

Heiwa

9th August 2007, 12:29 AM

Panoply_Prefect

9th August 2007, 12:46 AM

Gents,

the good news are that the air line and ar plane building companies are now suing FBI in order to find out what really happened 9/11.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/08072007fbi.pdf

Hopefully FBI will now produce a verified piece of AA77 found at pentagon, etc. that convinces the air line company and the plane builder. Until then we do not know if AA77 actually crashed into pentagon.

Of course they won't. The lawsuit has nothing to do about whether a plane hit the Pentagon or not, it has to do with how it was allowed to do so. The reason is that individuals are suing, among others, the aviation companies:

The claimants seek to impose billion of dollars in liability against the Aviation Parties for their alleged failure to detect and halt the terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11.

As shown before, you still don't actually read the links you post. You are just in such a hurry to move on to the next ice floe.

beachnut

9th August 2007, 12:53 AM

Gents,

the good news are that the air line and ar plane building companies are now suing FBI in order to find out what really happened 9/11.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/08072007fbi.pdf

Hopefully FBI will now produce a verified piece of AA77 found at pentagon, etc. that convinces the air line company and the plane builder. Until then we do not know if AA77 actually crashed into pentagon.
People are suing the airlines, the airlines want to blame the FBI. So?

Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon. By posting this you have proved all planes on 9/11 were hijacked as we all know. You just debunked yourself. You need to take this post back, unless you want to verify by this very post that flight 77 hit the Pentagon, flight 11 and 175 into the towers, and flight 93 into PA.

Funny, how you just made all your junk void.

Zorglub

9th August 2007, 01:05 AM

Of course they won't. The lawsuit has nothing to do about whether a plane hit the Pentagon or not, it has to do with how it was allowed to do so. The reason is that individuals are suing, among others, the aviation companies:
You are just moving on to the next ice floe.
Heiwas hope is of course that this lawsuit will prove his NPL-theory. To see this happen one of the participants must raise the question wether AA7 really hit the Pentagon or not.
That this question isn´t mentioned in the lawsuit is, for Heiwa at least, not important. The whole lawsuit, as stated by previous posts, is based on the official version with AQ as the organisation behind 9/11.
I "assume" that the words "lawsuit, "9/11" and "FBI "set off the alarm.

Heiwa

9th August 2007, 05:25 AM

Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon.

This is your opinion (A) and also US policy. My opinion (B) is that the damages were caused by explosive device(s) in the pentagon E-wall.

It is a pity FBI didn't investigate (B). Shouldn't have been too difficult.

Belz...

9th August 2007, 05:26 AM

Zorglub

9th August 2007, 07:59 AM

This is your opinion (A) and also US policy. My opinion (B) is that the damages were caused by explosive device(s) in the pentagon E-wall. And also the opinion of the lawsuit you are so excited about. So if by chance this lawsuit proves that AA77 hit the Pentagon. You will do what?

It is a pity FBI didn't investigate (B). Shouldn't have been too difficult.No especially since there are real doubts that Pentagon actually was damaged at all.

beachnut

9th August 2007, 10:04 AM

This is your opinion (A) and also US policy. My opinion (B) is that the damages were caused by explosive device(s) in the pentagon E-wall.

It is a pity FBI didn't investigate (B). Shouldn't have been too difficult.
Flight 77 did all the damage to the building, then the fires destroyed more. Sorry you have no facts.. I have all the facts. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon going over 473KIAS, you do not have a clue. Flight 77 going fast enough to create the damage of a 2000 pound bomb due to KE. Something you never studied. Your opinion is wrong, my facts are correct.

Facts vs. Opinion, oops you lost. Darn, nice try but next time come with facts. Learn physics, and stop posting opinions at a facts needed affair.

Heiwa

9th August 2007, 11:20 AM

Here are some 9/11 witnesses:
http://www.netsummary.dk/2007/05/americans-are-not-stupid.php?m=l

Panoply_Prefect

9th August 2007, 11:25 AM

Here are some 9/11 witnesses:
http://www.netsummary.dk/2007/05/americans-are-not-stupid.php?m=l

Great move, HEIWA. Now you are sure to get a civil debate.

Heiwa

9th August 2007, 11:25 AM

Flight 77 did all the damage to the building, then the fires destroyed more. Sorry you have no facts.. I have all the facts. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon going over 473KIAS, you do not have a clue. Flight 77 going fast enough to create the damage of a 2000 pound bomb due to KE. Something you never studied. Your opinion is wrong, my facts are correct.

Facts vs. Opinion, oops you lost. Darn, nice try but next time come with facts. Learn physics, and stop posting opinions at a facts needed affair.

Where did you get your facts from? The tooth fairy? Father Christmas? You are a fantastic source of information.

BTW who taught you physics? A football coach?

beachnut

9th August 2007, 11:27 AM

Here are some 9/11 witnesses:
http://www.netsummary.dk/2007/05/americans-are-not-stupid.php?m=l
So you are now officially an American, I decree you are as these people are, but your expertise of terminal stupidity is 9/11. Still no facts. Thanks for showing us your American cousins. I did not know you had so many relatives in the US. Ironic post, you have identified your problem with 9/11, you have no idea, no clue, and no facts.

Zorglub

9th August 2007, 12:19 PM

Here are some 9/11 witnesses:

Ah! Well. If you think this counts as evidence I can understand why you never fully understands why we continue to deny your fact -ridden, bullet-proof, well-supported theory.
Question:If the lawsuit you mentioned before clearly states that AA77 hit the Pentagon. FBI, Interpol and the Starfleet federation will bring up hard evidence that this realy was what happenend. You will do what?
1. Lay down you arms.
2. Claim that the evidence is fake, the witnesses are cross-.eyed and not to be trusted, and shout it was an inside job?

Heiwa

9th August 2007, 12:24 PM

So you are now officially an American, I decree you are as these people are, but your expertise of terminal stupidity is 9/11. Still no facts. Thanks for showing us your American cousins. I did not know you had so many relatives in the US. Ironic post, you have identified your problem with 9/11, you have no idea, no clue, and no facts.

No, the American people shown are not stupid at all. They are all very nice, social and friendly and some young girls are quite qute too, etc. They are good people. But they lack some basic knowledges in various fields. And they are also very easy to deceive. What upsets me is not the good people being interviewed. It is the media guy announcing the report.

Heiwa

9th August 2007, 12:41 PM

Ah! Well. If you think this counts as evidence I can understand why you never fully understands why we continue to deny your fact -ridden, bullet-proof, well-supported theory.
Question:If the lawsuit you mentioned before clearly states that AA77 hit the Pentagon. FBI, Interpol and the Starfleet federation will bring up hard evidence that this realy was what happenend. You will do what?
1. Lay down you arms.
2. Claim that the evidence is fake, the witnesses are cross-.eyed and not to be trusted, and shout it was an inside job?

Good questions. If I were the airline companies or plane manufacturers in this case, I would of course deny everything (as they do)! I am innocent until proven otherwise. So the accusing/accused party, FBI and its boss, must prove all their findings that I am a criminal or whatever. Imagine I am the owner of AA77 and it has disappeared. FBI announces it has crashed into pentagon due to my fault, e.g. checking the passengers or not having a crew that can stop some gangsters with carpet cutters. Before even discussing my negligence - checking the passengers/weak crew - FBI must of course show that AA77 crashed into pentagon. Let them do that. So far I haven't seen anything that gives me reason to believe that.

So FBI presents some proof that AA77 actually crashed into pentagon. What do I do? I evidently present some other proof that it was not (because I have plenty). I do not start screaming inside job or other obtusites or lay down my arms (that I do not carry).

beachnut

9th August 2007, 12:47 PM

No, the American people shown are not stupid at all. They are all very nice, social and friendly and some young girls are quite qute too, etc. They are good people. But they lack some basic knowledges in various fields. And they are also very easy to deceive. What upsets me is not the good people being interviewed. It is the media guy announcing the report.
I had a few physics teachers, and when I finished my engineering degree I went to UPT. Then I was invited to get my Masters in Electrical Engineering.

The media guy is making a funny video, you are making errors in judgment about 9/11. You must not be very educated in physics or math. You believe in CT on 9/11. It is not a very intelligent endeavor, and making up lies about 9/11 like you have been is low down, despicable.

Panoply_Prefect

9th August 2007, 01:09 PM

But they lack some basic knowledges in various fields. And they are also very easy to deceive.

They do do they? All 300 million of them? You do understand you are getting sillier and sillier by the post?

Heiwa

9th August 2007, 01:52 PM

They do do they? All 300 million of them? You do understand you are getting sillier and sillier by the post?

No, I got upset about the media announcer. They are very few. And they deceived you, too. The media is the message.:p

stateofgrace

9th August 2007, 02:01 PM

No, the American people shown are not stupid at all. They are all very nice, social and friendly and some young girls are quite qute too, etc. They are good people. But they lack some basic knowledges in various fields. And they are also very easy to deceive. What upsets me is not the good people being interviewed. It is the media guy announcing the report.

But not you eh?

By the way any chance of a comment in this thread?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89666 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89666)

For some reason no truther has made a comment yet, maybe you will be the first, you being so smart and not so easily deceived.

Heiwa

9th August 2007, 02:01 PM

I had a few physics teachers, and when I finished my engineering degree I went to UPT. Then I was invited to get my Masters in Electrical Engineering.

The media guy is making a funny video, you are making errors in judgment about 9/11. You must not be very educated in physics or math. You believe in CT on 9/11. It is not a very intelligent endeavor, and making up lies about 9/11 like you have been is low down, despicable.

Yes, I believe in CD of 9/11 ... of pentagon of all places. And WTC too of course. These gangsters used the same methods in all four places. Kept it simple. And the longer I attend these fora, the more I am convinced. Cannot any clever person prove me wrong?

Panoply_Prefect

9th August 2007, 02:02 PM

No, I got upset about the media announcer. They are very few. And they deceived you, too. The media is the message.:p

You are saying that the "media announcer" lacked some basic knowledge and was easy to decieve?

That doesn't make sense.

Zorglub

9th August 2007, 02:06 PM

Good questions. If I were the airline companies or plane manufacturers in this case, I would of course deny everything (as they do)! I am innocent until proven otherwise. So the accusing/accused party, FBI and its boss, must prove all their findings that I am a criminal or whatever. Imagine I am the owner of AA77 and it has disappeared. FBI announces it has crashed into pentagon due to my fault, e.g. checking the passengers or not having a crew that can stop some gangsters with carpet cutters. Before even discussing my negligence - checking the passengers/weak crew - FBI must of course show that AA77 crashed into pentagon. Let them do that. So far I haven't seen anything that gives me reason to believe that.

So FBI presents some proof that AA77 actually crashed into pentagon. What do I do? I evidently present some other proof that it was not (because I have plenty). I do not start screaming inside job or other obtusites or lay down my arms (that I do not carry).
Basically, what you say is that you will only accept an outcome of this hypotethical trial if it judges in your favour? If it doesn´t it´s even stronger proof that truth are muted by the man? Nice. How come you are the only one that doesn´t see that you are reasoning in tunnel vision. Your rethoric isn´t even rethorical. It´s just blindfolded tunnel vision with one aim in sight.

beachnut

9th August 2007, 02:08 PM

Yes, I believe in CD of 9/11 ... of pentagon of all places. And WTC too of course. These gangsters used the same methods in all four places. Kept it simple. And the longer I attend these fora, the more I am convinced. Cannot any clever person prove me wrong?
No, you are the one making up stories and since you can not prove them to persist in telling these false statements with no proof makes your statements lies. You have to prove it happened, and since there is no evidence you are wrong. Only uneducated fools believe the statement you make. Why are you making up lies? I see your talk is all you have. Every single piece of evidence is against your ideas. Why make up lies, what is your purpose for telling lies about 9/11? Why?

Heiwa

9th August 2007, 02:08 PM

But not you eh?

By the way any chance of a comment in this thread?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89666 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89666)

For some reason no truther has made a comment yet, maybe you will be the first, you being so smart and not so easily deceived.

When I opened the thread you had plenty of replies. BTW nobody in Germany or elsewhere in Europe have been sentenced for anything to do with 9/11 as per US policy. Reason? FBI cannot provide any evidence.

Heiwa

9th August 2007, 02:18 PM

No, you are the one making up stories and since you can not prove them to persist in telling these false statements with no proof makes your statements lies. You have to prove it happened, and since there is no evidence you are wrong. Only uneducated fools believe the statement you make. Why are you making up lies? I see your talk is all you have. Every single piece of evidence is against your ideas. Why make up lies, what is your purpose for telling lies about 9/11? Why?

Calm down. I am not making up anything. We just happen to have different opinions based on the info available. I consider the FBI evidence - all single pieces of it - rubbish because they cannot produce one little bit of AA77 at pentagon. I don't know why you swallow the FBI fairy tale? Policy? And why do you become rude? Uneducated fools? You discuss with those?:eye-poppi

funk de fino

9th August 2007, 02:19 PM

Whats your stance on the Hamburg cell?

Heiwa

9th August 2007, 02:24 PM

Basically, what you say is that you will only accept an outcome of this hypotethical trial if it judges in your favour? If it doesn´t it´s even stronger proof that truth are muted by the man? Nice. How come you are the only one that doesn´t see that you are reasoning in tunnel vision. Your rethoric isn´t even rethorical. It´s just blindfolded tunnel vision with one aim in sight.

Of course I like to have the case heard in court. That's were it belongs. But I always recommend a proper criminal investigation beforehand to establish the facts. And we have not arrived there yet. :(

Heiwa

9th August 2007, 02:26 PM

Whats your stance on the Hamburg cell?

I assume it was set up by the gangsters of 9/11.

funk de fino

9th August 2007, 02:34 PM

Who? Name them?

stateofgrace

9th August 2007, 02:40 PM

When I opened the thread you had plenty of replies. BTW nobody in Germany or elsewhere in Europe have been sentenced for anything to do with 9/11 as per US policy. Reason? FBI cannot provide any evidence.

Really?

A Moroccan man convicted in Germany as an accessory to the attacks on the United States in September 2001 has been sentenced to 15 years in jail.

The court in Hamburg handed the maximum sentence against Mounir al-Motassadek

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6242867.stm

funk de fino

9th August 2007, 02:56 PM

Thats where i was going:rolleyes:

lets see the wriggle out of this?

GlennB

9th August 2007, 04:19 PM

Yes, I believe in CD of 9/11 ... of pentagon of all places. And WTC too of course. These gangsters used the same methods in all four places. Kept it simple. And the longer I attend these fora, the more I am convinced. Cannot any clever person prove me wrong?

A person such as you - who has created a fantasy existence as a "marine engineer and accident investigator" - cannot be proved wrong. You will never accept any evidence. Please go away.

Heiwa

10th August 2007, 01:06 AM

Really?

You are right. One person has finally been sentenced in Germany for involvement with 9/11 (for transferring money to some alleged hijacker). Missed that one. Doesn't prove that AA77 crashed into pentagon, though and not very clear who the gangsters really are.

Heiwa

10th August 2007, 01:24 AM

A person such as you - who has created a fantasy existence as a "marine engineer and accident investigator".

Sorry, I am quite real and succesful in my career (since 1965 about). I agree this 9/11 is a little besides my normal job but I was curious about the WTC2 collapse and its offical policy explanation.

Further structural analysis has convinced me that WTC2 would never just collapse due to fire. The redundancy of the perimeter column walls was enormous. The spandrels at every floor level could transmit/re-distribute the column loads all around the tower. This happened when 30 columns of the south wall were damaged. No danger whatsoever.

Then it is suggested that the floors sagged but the floors were just hanging on the columns and secured by bolts. No gravity load redistribution could take place from core to perimeter via these floors. Just lateral wind loads.

You could infact disconnect a perimeter comumn at three floors before that perimeter column would fail due buckling, but then the load at that column would just be redistributed to the adjacent columns. It is suggested that three floors were disconnected from the eastern wall and that the complete wall then sagged inwards ... and global collapse ensued. No way global collapse could ensue that way. The north, west and south wall would take the load! And three floors were never disconnected!

And global gravity collapse would never take place as shown! What we see is CD.

GlennB

10th August 2007, 05:24 AM

Sorry, I am quite real and succesful in my career (since 1965 about). I agree this 9/11 is a little besides my normal job but I was curious about the WTC2 collapse and its offical policy explanation.

Uhuh. Interesting to see that you worked for V.Ships from 1980 to 2000, although V.Ships wasn't founded until 1984.

Panoply_Prefect

10th August 2007, 05:28 AM

Uhuh. Interesting to see that you worked for V.Ships from 1980 to 2000, although V.Ships wasn't founded until 1984.

Linky?

EDIT: Found it.

V.Ships 1980-2000
Monaco
Group naval architect - Project manager. V.Ships is the worlds largest ship manager (founded 1984)

Is this the V.Ships in question?

http://www.vships.com

Belz...

10th August 2007, 05:36 AM

Here are some 9/11 witnesses:
http://www.netsummary.dk/2007/05/americans-are-not-stupid.php?m=l

Ah, yes. Insulting an entire population by showing cherry-picked interviews with the worst of them. That'll get you somewhere.

Incidently, what does this have to do with the discussion at hand ?

Where did you get your facts from? The tooth fairy? Father Christmas? You are a fantastic source of information.

That's your rebuttal ? "You're wrong!" ?

No, the American people shown are not stupid at all. They are all very nice, social and friendly and some young girls are quite qute too, etc. They are good people. But they lack some basic knowledges in various fields.

Well isn't that amazing ? From all across the globe, these people have something in common with you.

If I were the airline companies or plane manufacturers in this case, I would of course deny everything (as they do)!

Just because YOU'RE dishonest, Heiwa, doesn't mean everybody else is.

And they deceived you, too.

Just because you believe nonsense, Heiwa, doesn't mean everybody else should.

Yes, I believe in CD of 9/11 ... of pentagon of all places.

And why ? So far you haven't shown that belief to be based on facts. You just state it, and in so doing showcase your own ignorance.

These gangsters used the same methods in all four places. Kept it simple.

What's simpler than crashing four planes into buildings and leaving it at that ?

And the longer I attend these fora, the more I am convinced.

How can debating people who show you wrong again and again convince you that you're right ?

Cannot any clever person prove me wrong?

Heiwa, a cockroach could prove you wrong.

Belz...

10th August 2007, 05:39 AM

Calm down. I am not making up anything. We just happen to have different opinions based on the info available.

So far, so good. But then:

I consider the FBI evidence - all single pieces of it - rubbish

So, basically, you "happen" to have a different opinion "based on the info available" but you ignore all of the FBI evidence because it isn't completely convincing to you ? How do you call that ?

Oh, yeah. You call that dishonest.

because they cannot produce one little bit of AA77 at pentagon.

Again: WHAT ABOUT THOSE PIECES OF WRECKAGE ALL OVER THE LAWN ?

I don't know why you swallow the FBI fairy tale? Policy?

Policy of what ?

And why do you become rude? Uneducated fools?

:i:

So FBI presents some proof that AA77 actually crashed into pentagon. What do I do? I evidently present some other proof that it was not (because I have plenty).

So, no matter how much evidence is against you, you will never change your opinion ? Thank you for showing how close-minded you are.

Belz...

10th August 2007, 05:43 AM

Further structural analysis has convinced me that WTC2 would never just collapse due to fire.

What if you decide to factor in the 767 that crashed into it ?

The redundancy of the perimeter column walls was enormous.

Enormous ? Based on what ? Since when do they design buildings to withstand the inconceivable ?

The spandrels at every floor level could transmit/re-distribute the column loads all around the tower. This happened when 30 columns of the south wall were damaged. No danger whatsoever.

And yet the structural experts of the world disagree with you. Why do you think that is ? I'd like an answer to this particular question, if only that.

Then it is suggested that the floors sagged but the floors were just hanging on the columns and secured by bolts. No gravity load redistribution could take place from core to perimeter via these floors. Just lateral wind loads.

Ridiculous. You can CLEARLY see the exterior columns bowing because of the load.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045892c4f64e35.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3266)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045892c65f25a4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3267)

You could infact disconnect a perimeter comumn at three floors before that perimeter column would fail due buckling, but then the load at that column would just be redistributed to the adjacent columns.

Could you show how you know this ?

And global gravity collapse would never take place as shown! What we see is CD.

That's what we call a false dichotomy. Also a non sequitur, of course.

stateofgrace

10th August 2007, 05:54 AM

You are right. One person has finally been sentenced in Germany for involvement with 9/11 (for transferring money to some alleged hijacker). Missed that one. Doesn't prove that AA77 crashed into pentagon, though and not very clear who the gangsters really are.

Actually it proves a whole lot more than that. It proves you have not got a clue what you are talking about and are simply making it up as you go along.

Heiwa

10th August 2007, 12:26 PM

Again: WHAT ABOUT THOSE PIECES OF WRECKAGE ALL OVER THE LAWN ?

Yes what about those? What were they? How could they end up there if the explosion was caused by a pre-positioned device that detonated in the wall?

Panoply_Prefect

10th August 2007, 12:43 PM

Yes what about those? What were they? How could they end up there if the explosion was caused by a pre-positioned device that detonated in the wall?

I would very much imagine you are the person to try to answer that question. You claim pre-planted explosives in the lawn, you fit it with the rest of the facts.

Heiwa

10th August 2007, 01:29 PM

Could you show how you know this ?.

It is easy by structural analysis just using simple beam elements and the right connections.

The perimeter walls are 60 off vertical beams/columns each connected at every floor level by horizontal beams (spandrels) all around that can transfer shear forces/bending moments between the columns.

This makes the perimeter (the four walls) like a very strong cage. All vertical (columns) and horizontal (spandrels) beams are very well connected = enormous redundancy.

You could also imagine tower to be a steel box with the walls to be of steel plates, stiffened by the columns vertically and by the spandrels horizontally, and then with holes for the windows.

The core columns are just vertical 'flag poles' all the way up.

The floors consist of trusses that are simply hanging on the perimeter and core columns (actually they are only bolted to them).

This means that the floors can only transfer the gravity load on the floors themselves to the core/perimeter columns. The floor trusses cannot transfer any gravity loads from a perimeter to a core column (the inner flag poles).

But the floors can transmit horizontal loads (wind) from perimeter to core columns. And they also support the perimeter/core columns horizontally. Buckling of a perimeter column due to gravity load is no problem - the critical buckling length of a perimeter column is 4X the floor height = you can disconnect three floors from the perimeter column and it still stands.

The columns are designed to have constant stress all the way down to the ground using thicker and/or stronger (high tensile) steel at the lower parts.

The spandrels do not transfer any (shear) loads in undamaged condition but have a big shear area can can transfer very big loads in damage cases (redundancy).

The floor trusses are designed to transmit the gravity load on the floor to the columns and the horizontal/lateral wind loads between columns.

The hat trusses at the top can be ignored (they just distribute the roof (the antenna) load to all columns).

I must admire the designers of the WTCs. The above design is very strong with enormous redundancy.

So when a hole is blown in the south side of WTC2 and cuts 30 perimeter columns nothing happens. The gravity loads in these perimeter columns are transmitted via the spandrels above to the other perimeter columns all around.

A fire starts! The perimeter columns are not affected by the heat as they are on the outside (cool air). NIST suggests the floor trusses are affected by heat. First (we are told) they expand due to heat and pushes the perimeter columns out, then (we are told) they sag due to heat and pull the perimeter columns in. But there is no real weight on the trusses and the heat is small so the sag cannot be very big. It is not possible that the heat can shear off the bolts that connect the trusses ot the columns. So the columns are still supported sideways by the floors. No global collapse can ever just 'ensue'.

But NIST suggests (without evidence) that the middle east wall perimeter columns starts to buckle (you need three floors to be disconnected then) and that the gravity load in these columns is the redistributed to the adjacent perimeter columns via the spandrels above all the way to the roof. This is correct. But the load is not just redistributed to the adjacent columns but all around the tower (like for the hole in the south wall).

NIST also suggests that gravity loads on the east wall is also redistributed to the core via the floors but it is not possible due the floors only being hanging on/being bolted to the columns (and the hat trusses can be ignored).

Then NIST suggests that all perimeter columns in the east wall buckles (disconnected at three floor levels) ... and that global collapse ensues. This is not proven and is not even possible due the spandrels above = the enormous redundancy of the tower. Actually the tower will still stand when you remove the complete east wall between floors 78-82!

The photos you show showing the east wall bending inward seem misleading.

The reason is that the gravity loads on the floors above the east wall floor 82 (only about 10-15% of the total gravity load above floor 82) are easily redistributed to the other three walls via the spandrels at 20 floor levels above. The core columns are not affected at all!

For anything like 'global collapse' to occur you have to disconnect the floors 79, 80 and 81 all around the tower ... and what would happen then?

Probably the walls would drop down to floor 78 ... but the core would still stand. The tower would just sag.

What would not happen is what we see - the tower exploding throwing columns high up in the air and long way sideways. The columns are still connected both by the spandrels and the floors.

We also see material being blown out through the windows all around the tower prior to the 'global collapse' front reaches the relevant windows at very high velocity. This material being blown out (at high velocity) is parts of the core columns being destroyed by CD!

Actually the tower collapses inward/downward by CD of the core columns that fall down and the damaged core columns pull the floors and perimeter columns with them. The floors disintegrate in a cloud of cement dust blwon out and the perimeter columns bursts like spagetti and are thrown out (and the spandrels cannot stop anything).

Any structural engineer can re-make above using simple beam elemants/analysis at nominal temperature. No need to confuse matters with thermal loadings, etc.

Heiwa

10th August 2007, 01:37 PM

I would very much imagine you are the person to try to answer that question. You claim pre-planted explosives in the lawn, you fit it with the rest of the facts.

Don't be obtuse. The explosives were just pre-planted in the pentagon. So where did the alleged air plane werckage parts on the lawn come from? What were they according to FBI. From AA77? Come on!

Panoply_Prefect

10th August 2007, 01:42 PM

The explosives were just pre-planted in the pentagon. So where did the alleged air plane werckage parts on the lawn come from?

Are you quite sane? They came from AA77. If you think otherwise, prove it.

Heiwa

10th August 2007, 01:42 PM

Uhuh. Interesting to see that you worked for V.Ships from 1980 to 2000, although V.Ships wasn't founded until 1984.

So I was there to assist founding it (the original company remained and another was added with a new name and expanded their services to outside clients). No magic at all.

Heiwa

10th August 2007, 01:49 PM

Are you quite sane? They came from AA77. If you think otherwise, prove it.

Yes I am sane. That's why I think FBI shall first show that all wreckage parts originate from AA77. It should not be too difficult. Their failure not to do so for almost six years is the origin of many conspiracy theories. I have only seen various photos of alleged wreckage parts from pentagon and cannot prove anything obviously. But the parts I have seen on the lawn do not look like plane parts.

GlennB

10th August 2007, 02:34 PM

So I was there to assist founding it (the original company remained and another was added with a new name and expanded their services to outside clients). No magic at all.

Your website claims "several patents" related to ship safety but you detail only one, the "Coulombi Egg" oil tanker design (which has never been implemented).

What were the other patents?

Panoply_Prefect

10th August 2007, 03:01 PM

Their failure not to do so for almost six years

The failure not to do so?

Anyhoo, no documents from the FBI would convince you. You would, just like you do with all those broadcasts, the Naudetvideo, those pictures, all those witnessess, just start saying "planted" and "faked". You have already shown that, that you really don't care much for basing your claims on anything more solid than "Its on the internet".

Corsair 115

10th August 2007, 03:05 PM

Don't be obtuse. The explosives were just pre-planted in the pentagon. How? When? By how many? Were they planted by hand, or were vehicles use to transport them? What kind of explosives? Where did they come from? Why didn't anyone notice this activity before the day?

If you can't offer some answers to the above and evidence to support them, then your theory has as much worthiness as one promoting the idea that somewhere in the asteroid belt there is a piece of chocolate cake floating around.

Heiwa

10th August 2007, 03:43 PM

Your website claims "several patents" related to ship safety but you detail only one, the "Coulombi Egg" oil tanker design (which has never been implemented).

What were the other patents?

OT. Pls send me a private message, intoroduce yourself and I will tell you, maybe.

GlennB

10th August 2007, 03:59 PM

OT. Pls send me a private message, intoroduce yourself and I will tell you, maybe.

Eh?
If I had several patents to my name they'd be on my CV. Why are you so bashful?

Heiwa

10th August 2007, 04:10 PM

How? When? By how many? Were they planted by hand, or were vehicles use to transport them? What kind of explosives? Where did they come from? Why didn't anyone notice this activity before the day?

If you can't offer some answers to the above and evidence to support them, then your theory has as much worthiness as one promoting the idea that somewhere in the asteroid belt there is a piece of chocolate cake floating around.

Thanks for your intelligent contributions to the discussion. As you know by now I find it intriguing to speculate about how 9/11 was actually done and my present stand is CD - at WTC 1,2,7 and pentagon and no planes. Same at Shanksville but no CD ... and no plane, of course. Keep it simple.

You ask details about pentagon. May I ask you why?

Anyway, it would not have been too difficult to install high power explosive devices in the pentagon wall during reconstruction taking place a little earlier before 9/11 and blow it up according some plan. I have no idea about the details. But the effects would be clear.

Unfortunate people close by would be killed by this detonation and an autopisy would have shown that it was not by, e.g. a plane crash. Was anybody killed by a plane part? Same if a proper forensic examination of the impact site had been done. The lack of plane wreckage parts anywhere makes me flabbergasted. But the public swallowed the early explanations. Everything burnt and went up in smoke. Then, parts and corpses were found inside ... but FBI could not verify anything. Etc., etc. And this does not take place in an outer space chocolate cake but just outside FBI HQ (some miles away) on the other side of the river.
But nobody at FBI HQ reacted. Sleeping at the switches, again and again?

And the gangsters are still around. That worries me. :mad: :mad:

Heiwa

10th August 2007, 04:11 PM

Eh?
If I had several patents to my name they'd be on my CV. Why are you so bashful?

Introduce yourself.

Corsair 115

10th August 2007, 04:21 PM

You ask details about pentagon. May I ask you why?Because YOU made the claim of planted explosives. Either present your evidence that supports that claim, or admit that your claim is merely baseless speculation lacking any proof.

The claim of a passenger jetliner striking the Pentagon is supported by numerous eyewitness evidence and physical evidence (i.e. plane wreckage, bodies, DNA testing, etc.).

What is your claim of planted explosives supported by? Surely you must have something more concrete to present.

GlennB

10th August 2007, 04:40 PM

Introduce yourself.

Hi - my name's Glenn.
Resident of Somerset, UK.
56 years old, married for 27 years. 2 children aged 25 and 23.
BSc in Biological Studies from University of E Anglia, 1972.
5 years teaching Biology and English
20 years in computer programming, Oracle database design and administration (mostly VMS and Unix)
4 years working in 'Special needs' education, specifically Asperger's Syndrome and EBD (emotional and behavioural difficulties)
Various odds+ends of work in between
Very recently retired. Wife and I relocating to Greece in October or thereabouts.
One dog, 2 cats, one parrot.

Is that OK?

stateofgrace

10th August 2007, 04:56 PM

Thanks for your intelligent contributions to the discussion. As you know by now I find it intriguing to speculate about how 9/11 was actually done and my present stand is CD - at WTC 1,2,7 and pentagon and no planes. Same at Shanksville but no CD ... and no plane, of course. Keep it simple.

You ask details about pentagon. May I ask you why?

Anyway, it would not have been too difficult to install high power explosive devices in the pentagon wall during reconstruction taking place a little earlier before 9/11 and blow it up according some plan. I have no idea about the details. But the effects would be clear.

Unfortunate people close by would be killed by this detonation and an autopisy would have shown that it was not by, e.g. a plane crash. Was anybody killed by a plane part? Same if a proper forensic examination of the impact site had been done. The lack of plane wreckage parts anywhere makes me flabbergasted. But the public swallowed the early explanations. Everything burnt and went up in smoke. Then, parts and corpses were found inside ... but FBI could not verify anything. Etc., etc. And this does not take place in an outer space chocolate cake but just outside FBI HQ (some miles away) on the other side of the river.
But nobody at FBI HQ reacted. Sleeping at the switches, again and again?

And the gangsters are still around. That worries me. :mad: :mad:

You mean like this?

What some experts have called "the most comprehensive forensic investigation in U.S. history" ended Nov. 16 with the identification of 184 of the 189 who died in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.

A multidisciplinary team of more than 50 forensic specialists, scientists, and support personnel from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, with headquarters at Walter Reed, played a major role in Operation Noble Eagle investigations, officials said.
Many of the casualties were badly burned and difficult to identify, an official said. Of the 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were passengers on American Airlines Flight 77. Only one of those who died made it to the hospital. The rest were killed on site, and for some, only pieces of tissue could be found. AFIP's team of forensic pathologists, odontologists, a forensic anthropologist, DNA experts, investigators, and support personnel worked for over two weeks in the mortuary at Dover Air Force Base, Del., and for weeks at the DNA lab in Rockville, to identify the victims of the attack.

Radiographic analysis of the remains from this event was a crucial step in the identification of victims and the investigation of the crime scene. The Department of Radiologic Pathology at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, or AFIP, performed this step with support from the Diagnostic Imaging Department of the Dover Air Force Base Medical Clinic. Because of the extraordinary scope of the mass-casualty scenario created by the Pentagon attack, an additional radiologist and military technologists from two reserve components supported the mission. This staff operated up to 12 hours per day, 7 days per week, as required by the volume of recovered remains.

Unfortunately, many specimens were received as body parts, often unrecognizable from their gross appearance and mixed with debris from the site. Each specimen designated for processing had an identification number assigned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that linked it to its recovery location at the scene.

In many cases, the whole-body radiograph established whether body parts, personal effects, or other materials were present in the specimen. The forensic radiologist reported all identifiable human structures and substantial objects recognized, along with comments on the condition of each. For example, we commented on the presence of fractures, the absence of anatomically contiguous body parts, and the presence of jewelry and/or personal effects. Also noted were distinguishing features that may aid in establishing the age of the victim (eg, the presence of skeletally immature bones or osteoarthritis in a knee) and identifying military personnel (eg, the presence of military insignia). The forensic dental team benefited from the discovery of teeth on a radiograph when they may not have been noted previously at gross inspection of the specimen. Since the event was known to be the result of a terrorist action, the radiologist also searched for any clues, such as weapons or aircraft parts, that might lead to a better understanding of the attack.

http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_archives/stories/112901/12279-1.shtml
http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/223/1/7?vol=223&fp=7&view=full

The gangsters will be around for a long time sunbeam, they are a figment of your imagination.

Heiwa

11th August 2007, 12:28 AM

You mean like this?

http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_archives/stories/112901/12279-1.shtml
http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/223/1/7?vol=223&fp=7&view=full

The gangsters will be around for a long time sunbeam, they are a figment of your imagination.

The victims were allegedly only identified by AFIP ... but no autopsies, no causes of death, no wreckage parts - the famous air plane seats are not mentioned, etc. Something is missing.

funk de fino

11th August 2007, 12:36 AM

You are right. One person has finally been sentenced in Germany for involvement with 9/11 (for transferring money to some alleged hijacker). Missed that one. Doesn't prove that AA77 crashed into pentagon, though and not very clear who the gangsters really are.

it proves you post incorrect "facts" or you are just lying

there are other terrorists that the german courts are trying to extradite so they can charge them with 911 activities

are you saying the german courts are in on the conspiracy?

Heiwa

11th August 2007, 12:41 AM

http://www.911blogger.com/node/10539

"I'll focus on the Pentagon:
Popular Mechanics claims that "hundreds of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building." They do not seem to have been to interested in analyzing the believability of some of these statements, as Griffin has done. PM quotes structural engineer Allyn Kilsheimer, who says: "It was absolutely a plane... I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them... I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I stood on a pile of debris that we later discovered contained the black box... I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
We almost don't need Griffin's help in realizing the absurdity of this statement: "But this is hardly 'okay.' Besides the fact that few people, aside from pathologists, would pick up body parts, the tail section of a Boeing 757 is over 20 feet long and quite heavy." Also, I might add, if he held the tail section in his hand, why didn't we see a tail section in the photographs immediately following the event?
A more disturbing aspect of this eyewitness' account, however, concerns the editing of his words between PM's March 2005 magazine article and the book which appeared in the summer of 2006. In March 2005, Kilsheimer reportedly said "and I found the black box." Researchers, however, noted that the two black boxes were found, according to the official story, by two firefighters three days later. As Griffin says: "At what school of journalistic ethics did the PM authors learn that, if part of a statement you have quoted from one of your star witnesses turns out to be false ('I found the black box'), you may simply change that part of the statement (to 'I stood on a pile of debris that we later discovered contained the black box')?""

funk de fino

11th August 2007, 12:41 AM

The victims were allegedly only identified by AFIP ... but no autopsies, no causes of death, no wreckage parts - the famous air plane seats are not mentioned, etc. Something is missing.

did you read those links, it may help you to actually read stuff that people post for you

about the check for explosives, metal fragments, the dental checks, toxicology studies, photographs of injuries and last but not least this little beaut

At autopsy, forensic pathologists determined the cause and manner of death, aided by forensic anthropologist Dr. William C. Rodriguez in determining the race, sex, and stature of victims

you were saying?

Panoply_Prefect

11th August 2007, 12:42 AM

The victims were allegedly only identified by AFIP ... but no autopsies, no causes of death, no wreckage parts - the famous air plane seats are not mentioned, etc. Something is missing.

Well then, how would you explain the presence of passengers from a flight originating miles away from the Pentagon, and never scheduled to be anywhere near the Pentagon, amidst all that debris? Even if they were killed by explosives pre-planted in the walls?

Oh, wait, you don't have to do you? And if you do, its just "fake" and "planted", right?

Oh, but wait, there is more:

FBI experts collected trace evidence to search for chemicals from explosive devices and conducted fingerprint identifications
From those same links posted above.

funk de fino

11th August 2007, 12:46 AM

stateofgrace

11th August 2007, 07:16 AM

The victims were allegedly only identified by AFIP ... but no autopsies, no causes of death, no wreckage parts - the famous air plane seats are not mentioned, etc. Something is missing.

Yes there is something missing, sunbeam, it is missing in virtually every post you have made, it is called substance.

Your ideology is so deeply entrenched you will dismiss anything at all that contradicts your already predetermined conclusion , that being no planes were used, WTC 1 , 2 and 7 were demolished, and that everybody is lying to cover it all up. This ideology allows you to dismiss the efforts of those that were there and had the ghastly task as laid out in the links I have provide you. Links you clearly have not read, nor does it appear do you wish to read.

I don't know whether the truth really is too terrible for you to accept or whether your blinding ideology will not allow you to accept that you are talking about real people. Real people that were unfortunatly in the wrong place at the wrong time and died in the most appalling circumstances imaginable. The real people that had to deal with this, which through their own expertise, dedication and something you seem to be sadly lacking in, compassion,had the grisly task of identifying these unfortunate people.

I have decided to leave this thread and will contribute no further. It is abundantly clear you believe you are far more important that those that were there and those that had this unenviable task. They have my utter respect, for the way they handled this most dreadful event. Sadly the same cannot be said of you.

Good day, sir.

Heiwa

11th August 2007, 08:43 AM

Hi - my name's Glenn.
Resident of Somerset, UK.
56 years old, married for 27 years. 2 children aged 25 and 23.
BSc in Biological Studies from University of E Anglia, 1972.
5 years teaching Biology and English
20 years in computer programming, Oracle database design and administration (mostly VMS and Unix)
4 years working in 'Special needs' education, specifically Asperger's Syndrome and EBD (emotional and behavioural difficulties)
Various odds+ends of work in between
Very recently retired. Wife and I relocating to Greece in October or thereabouts.
One dog, 2 cats, one parrot.

Is that OK?

What's the name of the parrot?

funk de fino

11th August 2007, 08:48 AM

respond to post #694 and 695

then retract your claims about the only ID' by AFIP

Heiwa

11th August 2007, 08:49 AM

you are being reported for spamming with links and quotes and not adding anything to the argument yourself

OK - it was just included to show how confusing witnesses are. Strange witnesses running around on place of crime and picking up things. Or was it the reverse? And I still wonder if the FDR/CVR were found within 24 hrs or after three days, etc.

Heiwa

11th August 2007, 08:54 AM

respond to post #694 and 695

then retract your claims about the only ID' by AFIP

Yes, AFIP says far down in a press release that autopsies were done but we have not seen any results of autopsis, i.e. causes of death, which was what I was aiming for.

Alt+F4

11th August 2007, 09:03 AM

Yes, AFIP says far down in a press release that autopsies were done but we have not seen any results of autopsis, i.e. causes of death, which was what I was aiming for.

Every victim of Flight 93 was issued a death certificate.

funk de fino

11th August 2007, 09:04 AM

Yes, AFIP says far down in a press release that autopsies were done but we have not seen any results of autopsis, i.e. causes of death, which was what I was aiming for.

at least you have admitted you were mistaken

do you think you should get to look at anyones autopsy and be told cause of death?

just walk in from another country and say , hey give me the autopsy and cause of death of that person?

get real

i've not seen autopsies for people killed in the dresden bombings but this does not mean it never happened

or does it?

Zorglub

11th August 2007, 09:37 AM

Every victim of Flight 93 was issued a death certificate.

Not enough for Heiwa. You must explicity state that deacth certificates also contains the cause of death? And if I´m not mistaken you could find the death certificates here:
ancestry dot com/search/

Well that requieres a membership, but Heiwa will of course pay the membership in his search fot the truth.
Or even better, save your money Heiwa. If you find the cause of death with the pentagon victims you will of course claim that they are false.

But I do want you to anser one question. Exactly when was the debris placed outside the Pentagon? I´m not looking for you just answering "not important". Show us exactly how the plane debris was planted, by whom and how come nobody didn´t notice the strange oddity that severeal tons of plane debris was brought to the Pentagon instead of taken away.

Heiwa

11th August 2007, 10:35 AM

Not enough for Heiwa. You must explicity state that deacth certificates also contains the cause of death? And if I´m not mistaken you could find the death certificates here:
ancestry dot com/search/

Well that requieres a membership, but Heiwa will of course pay the membership in his search fot the truth.
Or even better, save your money Heiwa. If you find the cause of death with the pentagon victims you will of course claim that they are false.

But I do want you to anser one question. Exactly when was the debris placed outside the Pentagon? I´m not looking for you just answering "not important". Show us exactly how the plane debris was planted, by whom and how come nobody didn´t notice the strange oddity that severeal tons of plane debris was brought to the Pentagon instead of taken away.

I am never happy with 9/11. I am devoted to hard facts. I can very well understand that they found dead people/employees in pentagon a little remote from the impact zone and that they had died from smoke inhalation, fire or being knocked out for various reasons and could be issued with proper death certificates. Then we have the people in the impact zone - employees and alleged passengers. I am, e.g. curious about passengers, strapped in their seats. Did they really exist? So why can't we see the seats? And the employées - were they actually hit by a plane slicing through the E-wall. Or by a detonation? This lack of certified wreckage parts of AA77 really bothers me.

How the plane debris on the lawn was planted? First it is not clear what the debris actually consisted of. There are some photos of a few strange twisted parts of aluminium - what are they? Are they actually from a plane? Etc. etc.

I would have expected much more, real air plane debris outside on the lawn if it is true that they found air plane seats of aluminium and seat belts, etc. inside the building. I would have found two engines, a lot of pumps, compressors, landing gear, hydraulic cylinders and other parts of steel and with the ID plates on them inside the building that you normally find at every air plane crash site. FBI says they have a whole warehouse full of these parts ... but none is shown. They are kept pending some trial, ha, ha, ha. I do not believe they exist ... so then a logical idea is that the damages to the building were done by CD. Simple. Substance!

Zorglub

11th August 2007, 10:46 AM

I am never happy with 9/11. I am devoted to hard facts. I can very well understand that they found dead people/employees in pentagon a little remote from the impact zone and that they had died from smoke inhalation, fire or being knocked out for various reasons and could be issued with proper death certificates. Then we have the people in the impact zone - employees and alleged passengers. I am, e.g. curious about passengers, strapped in their seats. Did they really exist? So why can't we see the seats? And the employées - were they actually hit by a plane slicing through the E-wall. Or by a detonation? This lack of certified wreckage parts of AA77 really bothers me.

How the plane debris on the lawn was planted? First it is not clear what the debris actually consisted of. There are some photos of a few strange twisted parts of aluminium - what are they? Are they actually from a plane? Etc. etc.

I would have expected much more, real air plane debris outside on the lawn if it is true that they found air plane seats of aluminium and seat belts, etc. inside the building. I would have found two engines, a lot of pumps, compressors, landing gear, hydraulic cylinders and other parts of steel and with the ID plates on them inside the building that you normally find at every air plane crash site. FBI says they have a whole warehouse full of these parts ... but none is shown. They are kept pending some trial, ha, ha, ha. I do not believe they exist ... so then a logical idea is that the damages to the building were done by CD. Simple. Substance!
No that wasn´t the answer to the question. I wasn´t asking what you would have found.
1.When was the plane debris you claim didn´t belong to AA77, planted outside the pentagon? Show us an estimated opening in the timeline, with the approximate time for start - en, when this was possible to do.
2.How was it brought there without anyone noticing? Trucks, helicopters underground tunnels?

Question two-four. You being the smartest truth seeking person alive. Would you have planned 9/11 the way you claim it was done? Or could you think of a simpler way? Is the conspiracy really the simplest way to fake an attack on america? As you are a true beliver in the simple way to do things I´d thought you might have some ideas of your own.

Heiwa

11th August 2007, 11:32 AM

No that wasn´t the answer to the question. I wasn´t asking what you would have found.
1.When was the plane debris you claim didn´t belong to AA77, planted outside the pentagon? Show us an estimated opening in the timeline, with the approximate time for start - en, when this was possible to do.
2.How was it brought there without anyone noticing? Trucks, helicopters underground tunnels?

Question two-four. You being the smartest truth seeking person alive. Would you have planned 9/11 the way you claim it was done? Or could you think of a simpler way? Is the conspiracy really the simplest way to fake an attack on america? As you are a true beliver in the simple way to do things I´d thought you might have some ideas of your own.

1. What little 'plane' debris found on the lawn was part of the detonation of the wall. Underground tunnel?? What age are you? All pieces could be picked up by one person.

Two-four. I think the gangsters did it with CD everywhere. That's the easy part. The planes and hijackings were deceptions with the whole US air force + armed forces around exercizing with planes flying around. And the media played its part of course. Not too difficult ... with some planning and exercizing. The visual witnesses are the easiest to manipulate. What a cynic I am. But I have seen similar things on a smaller scale and nobody seems to care.

GlennB

11th August 2007, 12:04 PM

What's the name of the parrot?

Oliver.

Now, about these patents of yours?

Zorglub

11th August 2007, 01:00 PM

1. What little 'plane' debris found on the lawn was part of the detonation of the wall. Underground tunnel?? What age are you? All pieces could be picked up by one person.So now you are saying that there were no plane debris at all? Why the do you want the FBI to prove that the debris came from AA77. Or did you just made the story even better by claiming that NO debris from a plane (any plane) has ever been found at the Pentagon?
Ok, we´ll skip "underground tunnel" as a possible mean to transport the debris found outside on the lawn. As you have previously stated that the debris was from another plane I was under the impression that this still was the case.BUt of course it´s easier for you to avoid that question by claiming NO debris came from a plane.
If the debris came from the Pentagon. Care to point out a few office related pieces in any of the pictures taken outside? There must be lots of stuff?

About my age? A few years younger than you. But I caught logical thinking in an early age.

Two-four. I think the gangsters did it with CD everywhere. That's the easy part. The planes and hijackings were deceptions with the whole US air force + armed forces around exercizing with planes flying around. And the media played its part of course. Not too difficult ... with some planning and exercizing. The visual witnesses are the easiest to manipulate. What a cynic I am. But I have seen similar things on a smaller scale and nobody seems to care.
No that wasn´t the question. The question is: How would you plan the 9/11.
Or is the conspiracy you believe the absolutely easiest and simplest way to set the NWO-plans into action?

Of course CD is the easy part. Except you don´t have a clue how the charges got planted in any of the scenes at 9/11.

You are not a cynic. It´s like saying that the little red riding hood is a proof for wolfes being man-eaten beast anf therefore you are always cynical when you meet a wolf. After all, you have proof that wolfes are bad beasts. So the story goes. Therefore it´s true. That is jumping to conclusions. Not cynicism.

I on the other hand is a cynic when I say that no matter what. You will always be a blindfolded man in a tin foil hat. I´ve given up on people like you.
See, that is cynical.

Heiwa

11th August 2007, 01:13 PM

Oliver.

Age?

BTW - are we not a little OT?

Heiwa

11th August 2007, 01:22 PM

No that wasn´t the question. The question is: How would you plan the 9/11.

What an obfuscate question! Why would I plan the 9/11? I try to visualize how they did it ... and deceived you and all the rest.
And blamed it on OBL and KSM & Co.
Fascinating stuff. How to get away with murder, smelling like a rose.

twinstead

11th August 2007, 01:35 PM

GlennB

11th August 2007, 02:22 PM

Age?

BTW - are we not a little OT?

He's about 32.

OT? Well, you asked me to introduce myself before telling us about your patents, and I did. Then you started asking about the parrot, so I answered. Now you have another question, which I've answered.

You seem very reluctant to tell us about the patents. Why is that? You did promise.

Panoply_Prefect

11th August 2007, 03:56 PM

Yes, AFIP says far down in a press release that autopsies were done but we have not seen any results of autopsis, i.e. causes of death, which was what I was aiming for.

*cough[rule8]*

It seems no autopsies were done by FBI & Co so we do not know how they died.

Full-body radiographs followed to document skeletal fractures and assist in the identification process, followed by autopsy inspection. At autopsy, forensic pathologists determined the cause and manner of death, aided by forensic anthropologist Dr. William C. Rodriguez in determining the race, sex, and stature of victims.
Source. (http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_archives/stories/112901/12279-1.shtml)

I don't care what you were "aiming for". Were you wrong when you claimed that no autopsies were preformed, yes or no.

Earlier you claimed that several experts supported your theory of pre-planted experts:

Experts suggest what we saw at pentagon was a detonation caused by explosives and not a fire ball of jetfuel. http://www.voltairenet.org/article139203.html#article139203 .

However, you only presented one person, and he claimed it was a missile. Now I ask you, again. What experts?

Heiwa

12th August 2007, 12:10 AM

He's about 32.

OT? Well, you asked me to introduce myself before telling us about your patents, and I did. Then you started asking about the parrot, so I answered. Now you have another question, which I've answered.

You seem very reluctant to tell us about the patents. Why is that? You did promise.

I haven't promised anything. The patents ++ are filed here in my office, all HC, and you are welcome to have a look anytime. But check also my home page (in Swedish).

Heiwa

12th August 2007, 12:22 AM

Actually a just as valid question would be how, given the 'hypothetical' situation that 911 did indeed happen exactly as described by the official explanation, and the evidence and videos were exactly the same as now, would one go about trying to prove it was an inside job?

Typical evidence why people believe the 9/11 Commission is http://thewebfairy.com/911/haarp/reporter.didnt.see.plane.wmv
. This is what many people saw of WTC2. Two seconds of video fakery. Backed up by some reporters sitting in a studio. You wonder what the photographer in the helicopter was doing?
Four planes with total eight big jet engines, each several tons of steel, disappear ... and where are the eight jet engines? Not found! Strange. Give me a break.

funk de fino

12th August 2007, 12:54 AM

Heiwa

Did the dresden bombings happen?

Now you have been caught lying about autopsies you move onto oher evidence.

I was an aircraft technician for 12 years and those parts of debri we see are definately from an aircraft. Some of them are definately from a 757. I cannot say for certain that they are from Flight 77. I do know a 757 hit the pentagon so when I look at a rational explanation those 757 parts must have come from Flight 77

Now what else do you want to know about the debri, why is not from an aircraft and why is it not from a 757?

funk de fino

12th August 2007, 12:59 AM

. This is what many people saw of WTC2. Two seconds of video fakery. Backed up by some reporters sitting in a studio.

Four planes with total eight big jet engines, each several tons of steel, disappear ... and where are the eight jet engines? Not found! Strange. Give me a break.

1. Many people alse saw the actual planes hitting the towers with their own eyes

2. Not all the videos from that day are from the same helicopter crew, and not all the live feed had the same supposed fakery clues that our friend Ace claimed

3. They found parts of engines at all sites

Zorglub

12th August 2007, 01:52 AM

What an obfuscate question! Why would I plan the 9/11? I try to visualize how they did it ... and deceived you and all the rest.
And blamed it on OBL and KSM & Co.
Fascinating stuff. How to get away with murder, smelling like a rose.

Still not an answer to the question. You have stated several times that 9/11 was planned in the easiest and simplest way. I ask you if you belive that your conspiracy is the easiest way to plan the attacks.
I myself believe that it would be much easier to stage the attack with four real planes instead och faking them. But you say that I am wrong and my theory is complicated compared to yours. Therefore I ask you if you cannot see an easier way to stage the attacks.
If I aim decieved that is happily so. I have been decieved by facts and proof. You are decieved by assumption and lies. Socialworker, remember him? I was fooled by profesionals. You are fooled by storytellers and liars.

Care to point out some easily reconizable office equipment in the debris found outside the Pentagon?

Panoply_Prefect

12th August 2007, 04:19 AM

I haven't promised anything. The patents ++ are filed here in my office, all HC, and you are welcome to have a look anytime. But check also my home page (in Swedish).

You are making things up again, then. And you still haven't answered my questions (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2857873&postcount=714).

Heiwa

12th August 2007, 06:44 AM

Heiwa

Did the dresden bombings happen?

Now you have been caught lying about autopsies

According my mother-in-law that lived at Naunsdorf 2/1945 (35 kms west of) Dresden was bombed then. And visiting Dresden several times since I would agree it was bombed. Why do you ask? It seems OT.

I am not lying about autopsies - it is said they were done but I have not seen the results.

Heiwa

12th August 2007, 06:45 AM

3. They found parts of engines at all sites

Did they? All eight? What kind of engines? Where did they come from?

Panoply_Prefect

12th August 2007, 06:46 AM

I am not lying about autopsies - it is said they were done but I have not seen the results.

Moving the goalposts. You claimed non were preformed. They were, and you either new this, and thus were lying when you made the claim, or didn't know this and thus were ignorant.

Question is which is worst.

And I repeat myself. What experts?

Heiwa

12th August 2007, 06:47 AM

Socialworker, remember him?

No! You mean socialservice?

Heiwa

12th August 2007, 06:54 AM

Moving the goalposts. You claimed non were preformed. They were, and you either new this,[/b]?

They said (at the bottom of a press release) they performed autopsies but no results have been published ... how should I know if they were done? In such cases I assume they were not done.
It is like the airplane seats - in the media it is said they were found - but when you ask for proof, there is none. So I assume there were no airplane seats. My goal posts are always fixed.
It seems my standards of evidence are higher than yours.

GlennB

12th August 2007, 07:03 AM

I haven't promised anything. The patents ++ are filed here in my office, all HC, and you are welcome to have a look anytime. But check also my home page (in Swedish).

Well, you disappoint me. You claim to be friendly and honest, too.
Regrettably I don't speak Swedish and Monaco is a long trip to see your paperwork.

Thing is, Heiwa, that there's a great deal about your website and CV that doesn't ring true, so I was hoping you could put my mind at rest by providing a link to, or even scan of, a few of your patents. Presumably an organisation like yours must own a scanner?

Actually, just the patent # for your US patents would do.

Panoply_Prefect

12th August 2007, 07:05 AM

In such cases I assume they were not done.
It is like the airplane seats - in the media it is said they were found - but when you ask for proof, there is none. So I assume there were no airplane seats. My goal posts are always fixed.

Funny, I re-read your posts several times, and nowhere did you make that distinction. You clearly claimed that no autopsies were preformed, and now you've changed that to "Since I havent been given access to the autopsy reports, I will automatically asume that they were not done". You moved the goalposts. Should such reports be made publicly available (and I seriously hope that will never happen. I would never want my own autopsy report, or that of a relative, been made public), there is nothing stopping you from moving them again, eg running with "planted" and/or "faked".

It seems my standards of evidence are higher than yours.

They certainly are different from mine, that's for sure.

And you still haven't answered my question. What experts?

funk de fino

12th August 2007, 07:35 AM

According my mother-in-law that lived at Naunsdorf 2/1945 (35 kms west of) Dresden was bombed then. And visiting Dresden several times since I would agree it was bombed. Why do you ask? It seems OT.

I am not lying about autopsies - it is said they were done but I have not seen the results.

I do not believe you, show me evidence that Dresden was bombed

You stated that autopsies had not been carried out and they had, you were mistaken again or lying, you tell me what it was?

funk de fino

12th August 2007, 07:39 AM

Did they? All eight? What kind of engines? Where did they come from?

Why did you delete my first two points could you not answer them?

And yes, they did find parts of engines at all sites, I have not seen if they found all the engines but there were parts of engines found at all sites.

From the aircraft

Heiwa

12th August 2007, 08:42 AM

1. Many people alse saw the actual planes hitting the towers with their own eyes

The video is revealing. The helicopter is hovering in the same position for a long time, i.e. not moving around or up/down as you would expect, the camera is just focusing the towers only and not moving around. Quite boring news reporting. You would expect more movement/action. I assume both the helicopter pilot and the camera man is looking at the towers. It is not clear if there is a third man in the helicopter - a reporter commenting what is to be seen - but I assume so. Don't they all three see the plane coming from right? They have a fantastic view.Apperently not. They just send a picture to some head office where other people are commenting on the pictures sent.

Then there is this funny BEEP. And here comes the plane in the video small frame! From nowhere! We see it only two seconds And one commentator - probably the one in the helicopter reports an explosion in the tower. He has not seen the plane - because it has been added to the video between the helicopter and ground station/studio. And another commentator, in the studio jumps in and explains a plane was flying in from the right ... and what the viewers should believe.

The reason why the helicopter + camera is steady is that then you can easily copy paste a pixel plane into the live show after the BEEP in a fixed picture. Not so easy if the helicopter/camera is moving and the picture is moving.

Somebody should interview the persons in the helicopter! Why this steady view? Did they really see a plane? Or was it added to the video between helicopter and studio?

To me the video is fake. Why was it faked? Simply to deceive the TV viewers.
They saw it with their own eyes a plane hitting WTC2. Deceived.

You suggest that many people around WTC2 also saw the plane with their own eyes without help of a faked video. Who are they? I doubt they exist. I imagine some fake witnesses around WTC2 reporting they saw a plane and then others in the vicinity believed that they saw a plane too, etc.

I agree 100% with socialservice. The video is faked and then the only conclusion must be that the whole plane story is also faked. Keep it simple.

Heiwa

12th August 2007, 08:46 AM

Why did you delete my first two points could you not answer them?

And yes, they did find parts of engines at all sites, I have not seen if they found all the engines but there were parts of engines found at all sites.

From the aircraft

I think you are just forwarding rumours. First you would expect much more parts at all sites. Then, whatever debris was found, many just assumed they came from planes, because they were told planes had crashed. But let's face it: no parts have been identified to belong any planes in question.

funk de fino

12th August 2007, 08:51 AM

The video is revealing. The helicopter is hovering in the same position for a long time, i.e. not moving around or up/down as you would expect, the camera is just focusing the towers only and not moving around. Quite boring news reporting. You would expect more movement/action. I assume both the helicopter pilot and the camera man is looking at the towers. It is not clear if there is a third man in the helicopter - a reporter commenting what is to be seen - but I assume so. Don't they all three see the plane coming from right? They have a fantastic view.Apperently not. They just send a picture to some head office where other people are commenting on the pictures sent.

Then there is this funny BEEP. And here comes the plane in the video small frame! From nowhere! We see it only two seconds And one commentator - probably the one in the helicopter reports an explosion in the tower. He has not seen the plane - because it has been added to the video between the helicopter and ground station/studio. And another commentator, in the studio jumps in and explains a plane was flying in from the right ... and what the viewers should believe.

The reason why the helicopter + camera is steady is that then you can easily copy paste a pixel plane into the live show after the BEEP in a fixed picture. Not so easy if the helicopter/camera is moving and the picture is moving.

Somebody should interview the persons in the helicopter! Why this steady view? Did they really see a plane? Or was it added to the video between helicopter and studio?

To me the video is fake. Why was it faked? Simply to deceive the TV viewers.
They saw it with their own eyes a plane hitting WTC2. Deceived.

You suggest that many people around WTC2 also saw the plane with their own eyes without help of a faked video. Who are they? I doubt they exist. I imagine some fake witnesses around WTC2 reporting they saw a plane and then others in the vicinity believed that they saw a plane too, etc.

I agree 100% with socialservice. The video is faked and then the only conclusion must be that the whole plane story is also faked. Keep it simple.

It was not the only video, there are about 40 videos?

You cannot easily pixel anythng into a live picture that looks realistic, also do the cameras not have the motion compensation arms? Did this camera have this? Did it have motion comp built into the design? You do not know do you?

Now you are calling people who actually witnessed the video liars?

You really are a lost cause

And you have provided no proof of the Dresden bombings, so your claim is false

funk de fino

12th August 2007, 08:56 AM

I think you are just forwarding rumours. First you would expect much more parts at all sites. Then, whatever debris was found, many just assumed they came from planes, because they were told planes had crashed. But let's face it: no parts have been identified to belong any planes in question.

There are parts from 757/767 at all sites, there are engine parts from planes at all sites

If you cannot recognise them because you are not experienced in aircraft is in no way my fault, I was an aircraft tech for 12 years, I can recognise aircraft parts

where would you expext more debris and what type?

Go look at the pictures of the engine parts on other sites, then come back and see what you have to say

Panoply_Prefect

12th August 2007, 09:03 AM

And you still haven't answered my question. What experts?

*cough* Heiwa? Feel free to admit you were mistaken, there were no experts, and I'll quite bugging you. If you weren't just inform us who they were and why you think they support your claim of pre-planted explosives.

funk de fino

12th August 2007, 09:10 AM

This is a steadycam, they are used to stop camera motion when the camera is attached to something that moves, for example a person or a vehicle

http://fabforce.net/images/media/steadycam/chris-steadycam-02.jpg

Have a think about it, do you think that just maybe cameras could use this technology in helicopters?

Perhaps gimbal mounted cameras?

I dont know what type of camera was used, do you?

Heiwa

12th August 2007, 11:38 AM

It was not the only video, there are about 40 videos?

The one we see is the 'live' one - or 17 seconds old after the BEEP - according to socialservice = the time to paste in the pixel plane.

Other 'live' ones (only one or two more?) are similarily manipulated with BEEPs and 'Fade to Black' and delayed comments.

It seems all helicopters were totally stationary when filming and I assume all signals down to ground went through the same ground station where the manipulations took place. The media companies might not have known what happened? But the helicopter pilots must have been given strict instructions = be stationary. Don't disturb the show!

The other amateur videos of allegedly having filmed the 'plane' are all similarily manipulated in my opinion. Simply too good to be true. :eek:

Heiwa

12th August 2007, 11:42 AM

There are parts from 757/767 at all sites, there are engine parts from planes at all sites

Yes, I have heard those rumours and seen various photos, etc., but do they come from the missing planes? Eight big jet engines, e.g. How could they miss those?:rolleyes:

Zorglub

12th August 2007, 11:43 AM

According my mother-in-law that lived at Naunsdorf 2/1945 (35 kms west of) Dresden was bombed then. And visiting Dresden several times since I would agree it was bombed. Why do you ask? It seems OT.
OMG! Your grandmother is a part of the NWO-conspiracy. Has she ever proved that Dresden was bombed? Or did you just trust her stories. Damn, she has duped you big time! You mean you just believed in something without hard facts? Sending an armada of bombers in the open daylight bombing the town to a furnace with incendaries is of course a complicated way of killing people.
Actually it was the commies that put self combustifluid into the drinking water. On a specific time the habitants of Dresden self combusted.
No! You mean socialservice? Yep, thats hims. Glad I gave you a tiny tidbit of wrongish you could answer. There was of course a real question for you to answer, but you found the unimportant part of the post to comment.

Care to point out some pieces of easily reconisable office equipment in the photos of the Pentagon crashsite?

Care to bring up that specific timeline when debris from a boeing was brought TO the crash site instead of away from it.
Anytime soon will do.

Panoply_Prefect

12th August 2007, 12:05 PM

It seems my standards of evidence are higher than yours.

The one we see is the 'live' one - or 17 seconds old after the BEEP - according to socialservice = the time to paste in the pixel plane.

Other 'live' ones (only one or two more?) are similarily manipulated with BEEPs and 'Fade to Black' and delayed comments.

It seems all helicopters were totally stationary when filming and I assume all signals down to ground went through the same ground station where the manipulations took place. The media companies might not have known what happened? But the helicopter pilots must have been given strict instructions = be stationary. Don't disturb the show!

The other amateur videos of allegedly having filmed the 'plane' are all similarily manipulated in my opinion. Simply too good to be true. :eek:

http://www.wheelsjamaica.com/wheels_forum/Smileys/default/lg_rofl.gif

And, dont forget:

And you still haven't answered my question. What experts?
*cough* Heiwa? Feel free to admit you were mistaken, there were no experts, and I'll quite bugging you. If you weren't just inform us who they were and why you think they support your claim of pre-planted explosives.

Heiwa

12th August 2007, 02:19 PM

OMG! Your grandmother is a part of the NWO-conspiracy.

Glad I gave you a tiny tidbit of wrongish you could answer.

Care to bring up that specific timeline when debris from a boeing was brought TO the crash site instead of away from it.
Anytime soon will do.

Grandmother? You mean my mother-in-law? OMD? (Or my dog?) I don't have one!

Timeline! Assume the detonation in the wall took place at 00.00.00 hrs then the debris appeared at 00.00.00.5 hrs. It was fast. These gangsters are fast ... and stupid. No boeing debris that FBI could identify, though. So it was agreed all went up in smoke.

GlennB

12th August 2007, 02:36 PM

Grandmother? You mean my mother-in-law? OMD? (Or my dog?) I don't have one!

Timeline! Assume the detonation in the wall took place at 00.00.00 hrs then the debris appeared at 00.00.00.5 hrs. It was fast. These gangsters are fast ... and stupid. No boeing debris that FBI could identify, though. So it was agreed all went up in smoke.

Any sign of those patents yet, Heiwa?

After all, the documents are in your office. Easy to scan and post here. Evidence, Heiwa. You ask for evidence that would be extremely hard to locate. I ask for evidence that's in your office. Yet you refuse to show it??

tsk tsk

I'm beginning to think you are not being entirely honest with us.

Heiwa

13th August 2007, 12:25 AM

I'm beginning to think you are not being entirely honest with us.

In order to understand how an investigation of any casualty shall be done I recommend the Pre-amble of my book Disaster Investigation http://heiwaco.tripod.com/epreamble.htm .

Panoply_Prefect

13th August 2007, 12:46 AM

In order to understand how an investigation of any casualty shall be done I recommend the Pre-amble of my book Disaster Investigation http://heiwaco.tripod.com/epreamble.htm .

It's a long text. Does it contain your patents?

Oh, and yes, almost forgot:

And you still haven't answered my question. What experts?

*cough* Heiwa? Feel free to admit you were mistaken, there were no experts, and I'll quite bugging you. If you weren't just inform us who they were and why you think they support your claim of pre-planted explosives.

I don't understand why it's so hard.

funk de fino

13th August 2007, 01:00 AM

The one we see is the 'live' one - or 17 seconds old after the BEEP - according to socialservice = the time to paste in the pixel plane.

Other 'live' ones (only one or two more?) are similarily manipulated with BEEPs and 'Fade to Black' and delayed comments.
It seems all helicopters were totally stationary when filming and I assume all signals down to ground went through the same ground station where the manipulations took place. The media companies might not have known what happened? But the helicopter pilots must have been given strict instructions = be stationary. Don't disturb the show!

The other amateur videos of allegedly having filmed the 'plane' are all similarily manipulated in my opinion. Simply too good to be true. :eek:

try looking at the bbc feeds to see that what you have stated is false, they do not have the fade to black so that is the end of that claim

why would the helicopter not be stationary?, it was trying to film the tower, helicopters can hover and cameras can be made to comensate for movement, use you brain for once

socialservice is a member who was banned on here and has no idea what he talking about

now could the cameras been mounted as i said?

where is your proof for dresden? i think it was your grandmother who killed all thosde germans and tried to blame the allies? i want autopsies for all victims of the bombing or it did not happen

funk de fino

13th August 2007, 01:04 AM

Yes, I have heard those rumours and seen various photos, etc., but do they come from the missing planes? Eight big jet engines, e.g. How could they miss those?:rolleyes:

stop telling porkies, they found engines at all sites and there are pictures of engine parts at two of the site, the parts from flight 93 are in storage and contain engine parts, you cant see them in photos cause they were buried in the ground

you are either being really ignorant or now you have resorted to lying, you tell me what it is

funk de fino

13th August 2007, 01:08 AM

The other amateur videos of allegedly having filmed the 'plane' are all similarily manipulated in my opinion. Simply too good to be true. :eek:
so now you are saying all the people who made these videos and handed them to the authorities are liars as well as the people who actually saw the plane hit the tower with their own eyes are liars?

are you really that crass? remember this is not just the gangsters you are saying are liars this is ordinary people you are libelling

Panoply_Prefect

13th August 2007, 01:25 AM

try looking at the bbc feeds to see that what you have stated is false, they do not have the fade to black so that is the end of that claim

I already went down that road with Heiwa - he claims that they've all been edited to cover up the hoax.

In fact the only clip on Wayback Machine that has any "blips" and "fades" is that of CNN, but so far Heiwa hasn't been able to explain why NWO slipped on that one.

why would the helicopter not be stationary?, it was trying to film the tower, helicopters can hover

Most people even think that thats why news media use helicopters in the first place. Truthers however...

Heiwa

13th August 2007, 01:36 AM

so now you are saying all the people who made these videos and handed them to the authorities are liars as well as the people who actually saw the plane hit the tower with their own eyes are liars?

are you really that crass? remember this is not just the gangsters you are saying are liars this is ordinary people you are libelling

No, I am not saying anybody is a liar. Liars I will name. I can imagine that some honest people handed in films of the impact. I can also imagine how same amateur films later pop up with a plane pasted in. There are many variations how to deceive people.

The people that allege they saw the plane from ground at WTC2 is another matter. Did they actually see the plane? Maybe they only noticed the explosion? Like most did! And believed it was caused by a plane? Because why then manipulate the live coverage of the incident?

And the collapse of WTC2! As already described, the tower had enormous redundancy and could never have dropped down because 'global collapse ensued' due to some local structure weakening due heat at floors 79-81.
The only persons supporting NIST seem to have a vested interest to do so, e.g. financial. Did you read the link I posted above about how to manipulate an accident investigation? I think same principles are used at 9/11.

Panoply_Prefect

13th August 2007, 01:46 AM

No, I am not saying anybody is a liar. Liars I will name. I can imagine that some honest people handed in films of the impact. I can also imagine how same amateur films later pop up with a plane pasted in. There are many variations how to deceive people.

And you don't think the moviemaker would be a....tad surprised to suddenly have a plane appear on the film they took?

And your failure to respond makes me draw the conclusion that there never were any experts supporting your theory of pre-planted explosives. You lied.

funk de fino

13th August 2007, 02:50 AM

No, I am not saying anybody is a liar. Liars I will name. I can imagine that some honest people handed in films of the impact. I can also imagine how same amateur films later pop up with a plane pasted in. There are many variations how to deceive people.

The people that allege they saw the plane from ground at WTC2 is another matter. Did they actually see the plane? Maybe they only noticed the explosion? Like most did! And believed it was caused by a plane? Because why then manipulate the live coverage of the incident?

And the collapse of WTC2! As already described, the tower had enormous redundancy and could never have dropped down because 'global collapse ensued' due to some local structure weakening due heat at floors 79-81.
The only persons supporting NIST seem to have a vested interest to do so, e.g. financial. Did you read the link I posted above about how to manipulate an accident investigation? I think same principles are used at 9/11.

sorry, people actually saw the plane hit the tower, not just the explosion but the actual plane, you are saying these people are lying about it and it is disgusting

you are also calling all the people who took video of the plane hitting liars as well, they have taken the video and watched it then handed it in so they know what is on it before it is given to the FBI, how can it then be changed so they do not notice? pixel in a plane they already seen in their own film? be serious please

why bring the collapse into it, you are trying to move the argument away from one you are losing, stick to the point please

now about that evidence for dresden conspiracy? where is it? or do you agree i am correct?