Few things that bother me abot official 911 story [Archive]

markja

27th August 2007, 06:33 PM

Reality Believer

27th August 2007, 06:43 PM

Welcome Markja.

Sorry to hear that you are bothered by these things.

If you have questions, just know there are 127 pages of discussion on all of the topics above, and the search works great.

tsire

27th August 2007, 06:48 PM

A lot of questions that you have could be answered here: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

1)Bush and al gained popularity because of 9/11? I wouldnt say that, or they didnt capitalize on it. His approval rating is under 30%. Governments are always going to try to increase their power whenever they can. Is it right? Not in my opinion. But thats neither here nor there.

2) What cover up mentality, please provide some examples?

3) Remember that this attack came from within. Which isnt really what they would expect. They did have fighters in the air but realize the difficulty locating planes with radar alone. It took over an hour for first responders to get to the site? That just inst true.

4) Read Gravy's take on this found in the link at the top of the post.

5) I believe that the truthers are far more guilty of this then any of the skeptics. Taking people out of context, fabricating facts, making misleading statements, this is what is dishonest. Check your temperatures in the NIST report.

6) I dont believe the US government would never lie, I believe they lied to get into Iraq with the WMD claims. I believe the government/NIST account because it is a credible report put together by a group of experts. It stands up to peer-review for the most part.

Pardalis

27th August 2007, 06:52 PM

First a small intro :). Im from Finland and english isnt my native language

Hi, English is not my native language either.

Someone gave me a hint about this forum related to 911 "conspiracy" bashing

We're not conspiracy bashing, we're confronting them with the facts they refuse to see.

1) The first thing that bothers me about 911 is that who actually gained from it? Lets be frankly here, Bush and hes friends did, and so did the US politicians too. They got popularity, money, power and where able to start cutting down civil rights and other things that any goverment finds "bad". They got Afganistan, now Iraq and maybe soon Iran...with their oil etc. etc.

Why the government of the most powerful country in the world want popularity?

They didn't gain money from the attacks, they in fact cost trillions of dollars to the American economy. As far as civils rights and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the non-existing war in Iran, this is all politics, and nothing to do withthe facts of 9/11.

OK, sure, US officials made mistakes, maybe they are just trying to hide them...right?

Sure.

3) The fact that US, being the only superpower in the world, was unable to get fighter up in the air to protect its capital, when under major surprise attack and imminent danger to capital...

That's because they didn't expect an attack from within.

come on, are you really buying the "US just cant protect the capital even in hour" explanation?!?

They didn't have time to. Please read more about the subject, and use the search function.

The fact that it was reported (I recall by NIST, might have been FEMA) that the best theory on what caused WTC7 to collapse had "very low propability of occurance".

What are you talking about exactly?

5) The general talk and twisting of words and playing with words that is surrounding the official documents and talk.

That's your personal opinion.

So what Im saying is, that they try to make things sound like other what they really where. They are twisting words and playing word games. Why?

Again, your personal opinion.

If there are 2 different evidence on subject X, then the on that is from US goverment is concidered "trusted" while the other is concider "not trusted".

No, one should always evaluate evidence on its own merit.

There is just no solid evidence of a inside job conspiracy.

Drudgewire

27th August 2007, 07:00 PM

Hi, Markja. Welcome to JREF. :)

1) The first thing that bothers me about 911 is that who actually gained from it? Lets be frankly here, Bush and hes friends did, and so did the US politicians too. They got popularity, money, power and where able to start cutting down civil rights and other things that any goverment finds "bad". They got Afganistan, now Iraq and maybe soon Iran...with their oil etc. etc.
Let's say all that is true. Did not the terror movement gain anything as well? I'm not sure if you saw the footage of people dancing in the streets in several Middle Eastern cities after the attacks happened, but they happened.

Again, this is not proof either way so I'm not trying to convince you of anything yet. But take from this that Bush and his cronies aren't the ONLY ones who had multiple reasons for what happened on 9/11.

2) The second thing that really bothers me is the cover-up mentality combined with "multiple one-in-a-million-shot-change-errors" (and nobody has been fired because of them). OK, sure, US officials made mistakes, maybe they are just trying to hide them...right?
The real world is not like the movies. In times of war, there are things that are clasified. Years from now when we see these things, some of them will make perfect sense and some will just leave you scratching your head over why such orders were given or why they were ever classified in the first place. That's not a conspiracy, that's war.

3) The fact that US, being the only superpower in the world, was unable to get fighter up in the air to protect its capital, when under major surprise attack and imminent danger to capital...I recall it took over an hour to get the fighters there AFTER the WTC was hit and everyone knew there where multiple hijackings in progress. Orcourse there are "explanations" on "why" it happened to happen so. Well, here in tiny Finland, we got interceptors flying around Helsinkin BEFORE Pentagon was struck...come on, are you really buying the "US just cant protect the capital even in hour" explanation?!?
Yes, because every single thing, from the protocol prior to 9/11, to the knowledge of what really happens at Andrews AFB, to the previous examples of planes being lost and tracked (wiki Payne Stewart), to a frustrating chain of command that existed back then that slowed down the relaying of information, clearly... and I mean CLEARLY... backs the "official account."

4) About the WTC buildings. I know, try to hang on here. The fact that it was reported (I recall by NIST, might have been FEMA) that the best theory on what caused WTC7 to collapse had "very low propability of occurance".
That's the problem with the side of the argument that risks consuming you, rather than look at the mountains of real, indisputable (by ANY expert in their fields in the public or private sector) evidence, they cherry pick an out of context quote, a typo, or the tiniest disputable part of an otherwise sound theory and tout that as PROOF that it's all a lie.

Don't trust the "official version" if you choose, but to not trust the fact "their side" can not pull in a single bonafide expert, deliver a single tanglible piece of factual evidence, or so much as get through a single paragraph of one of their theories without including leaps and distortions that even they can't honestly believe instead, is choosing to ignore reality.

5) The general talk and twisting of words and playing with words that is surrounding the official documents and talk. For example, I recall it was on Popular Mechanics "Debunking 911 Myths", where they used language like:"In 1000 degrees Celsius, steel looses 90% of its strenght & hydrocarbon fires can rage up to 1200 degrees Celsius & there was hydrocarbon fire on WTC." I mean, all these are true, yes, but they are TOTALLY out of context. The fact was, that highest temperature measured in which any of the support colums had been was something like 500C and most of them didnt heat up over 200C & fires where not optimal hydrocarbon fires so they burned something like 600-800C at most. So what Im saying is, that they try to make things sound like other what they really where. They are twisting words and playing word games. Why?
I... never quite know what to say when someone who is defending the "truth movement" accuses ANYONE ELSE of distorting the facts. I mean, it's like the whole pit of my stomach drops out of me. I should be used to it by now, but it's never any less staggering.

6) It is general idea, that US goverment and its officials or institutions would never lie, but the paranoid nuts always lie. If there are 2 different evidence on subject X, then the on that is from US goverment is concidered "trusted" while the other is concider "not trusted".
None of us believe what we believe because the government said so. We're skeptics, we don't believe anything until the evidence takes us there. If we relied only on the government account we'd be everything the twoofers say we are... and just as ignorant of the real truth about what happened as they are.

We believe the evidence because EVERY SINGLE QUALIFIED EXPERT ON THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF IT agree with it. Meanwhile, the twoofers have biologists, theologians, and philosophy professors at the TOP of their intellectual pool. If there was ANYTHING to their claims, they would have real experts delivering real evidence that the real smart people here would have a hard time disproving.

But hey, they DO have Charlie Sheen. :rolleyes:

1337m4n

27th August 2007, 07:53 PM

Call me paranoid, but I just can't shake the suspicion that I've see these exact 6 points before, somewhere on this forum, posted by some other newbie.

TellyKNeasuss

27th August 2007, 08:13 PM

1) The first thing that bothers me about 911 is that who actually gained from it? Lets be frankly here, Bush and hes friends did, and so did the US politicians too. They got popularity, money, power and where able to start cutting down civil rights and other things that any goverment finds "bad". They got Afganistan, now Iraq and maybe soon Iran...with their oil etc. etc.

I got my current job because some scientist had received a grant. I had never even heard of either the organization or the scientist at the time the grant was received. I had absolutely nothing to do with writing or approving the proposal, but I benefited from the grant. This proves that it is not accurate to assume that anyone who benefits from some event was in some part responsible for the event.

2) The second thing that really bothers me is the cover-up mentality combined with "multiple one-in-a-million-shot-change-errors" (and nobody has been fired because of them). OK, sure, US officials made mistakes, maybe they are just trying to hide them...right?Please list the events that only had "one in a million" chance.

3) The fact that US, being the only superpower in the world, was unable to get fighter up in the air to protect its capital, when under major surprise attack and imminent danger to capital...I recall it took over an hour to get the fighters there AFTER the WTC was hit and everyone knew there where multiple hijackings in progress. Orcourse there are "explanations" on "why" it happened to happen so. Well, here in tiny Finland, we got interceptors flying around Helsinkin BEFORE Pentagon was struck...come on, are you really buying the "US just cant protect the capital even in hour" explanation?!?This has been explained in many threads.

5) The general talk and twisting of words and playing with words that is surrounding the official documents and talk. For example, I recall it was on Popular Mechanics "Debunking 911 Myths", where they used language like:"In 1000 degrees Celsius, steel looses 90% of its strenght & hydrocarbon fires can rage up to 1200 degrees Celsius & there was hydrocarbon fire on WTC." I mean, all these are true, yes, but they are TOTALLY out of context. The fact was, that highest temperature measured in which any of the support colums had been was something like 500C and most of them didnt heat up over 200C & fires where not optimal hydrocarbon fires so they burned something like 600-800C at most. So what Im saying is, that they try to make things sound like other what they really where. They are twisting words and playing word games. Why?You are the one twisting words. Steel loses half its strength at 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, not degrees Celsius. And it doesn't go from full strength at 999 degrees to half strength at 1000 degrees.

6) It is general idea, that US goverment and its officials or institutions would never lie, but the paranoid nuts always lie. If there are 2 different evidence on subject X, then the on that is from US goverment is concidered "trusted" while the other is concider "not trusted".There is enough publicly available evidence so that the belief in the credibility of specific government officials is not required to believe that 9/11 was performed by 19 hijackers.

defaultdotxbe

27th August 2007, 08:15 PM

3) The fact that US, being the only superpower in the world, was unable to get fighter up in the air to protect its capital, when under major surprise attack and imminent danger to capital...I recall it took over an hour to get the fighters there AFTER the WTC was hit and everyone knew there where multiple hijackings in progress. Orcourse there are "explanations" on "why" it happened to happen so. Well, here in tiny Finland, we got interceptors flying around Helsinkin BEFORE Pentagon was struck...come on, are you really buying the "US just cant protect the capital even in hour" explanation?!?
well as you say, the US is th eonly superpower left, as such, we grew complacent, we thought no one could ever touch us (or wouldnt have the guts to try) as such military preparation for a surprise attack was lackluster at best, and understandably so

4) About the WTC buildings. I know, try to hang on here. The fact that it was reported (I recall by NIST, might have been FEMA) that the best theory on what caused WTC7 to collapse had "very low propability of occurance".
your concentrating on "low probability of occurance" lets look at "best theory" from a scientific standpoint this measns "most probable" what does that say about the probability of any other theory?

5) The general talk and twisting of words and playing with words that is surrounding the official documents and talk. For example, I recall it was on Popular Mechanics "Debunking 911 Myths", where they used language like:"In 1000 degrees Celsius, steel looses 90% of its strenght & hydrocarbon fires can rage up to 1200 degrees Celsius & there was hydrocarbon fire on WTC." I mean, all these are true, yes, but they are TOTALLY out of context. The fact was, that highest temperature measured in which any of the support colums had been was something like 500C and most of them didnt heat up over 200C & fires where not optimal hydrocarbon fires so they burned something like 600-800C at most. So what Im saying is, that they try to make things sound like other what they really where. They are twisting words and playing word games. Why?
the columns that nIST tested matched up with what their computer simulation predicted, the simulation also predicted much higher temps in areas they werent able to test (due to limitations on their testing methods)

this was all laid out in the nISt report, im sure youve read it...

6) It is general idea, that US goverment and its officials or institutions would never lie
HA! thats the funiest strawmen ive ever seen.....this week

Alferd_Packer

27th August 2007, 08:22 PM

Call me paranoid, but I just can't shake the suspicion that I've see these exact 6 points before, somewhere on this forum, posted by some other newbie.

Remember, he is "Just Asking Questions" (JAQ).

But you are right, I too seem to remember a certain "naval engineer" JAQing off a bunch of questions like this before. OTOH, you could just be paranoid.

markja

27th August 2007, 08:39 PM

1)Bush and al gained popularity because of 9/11? I wouldnt say that, or they didnt capitalize on it. His approval rating is under 30%.
Yes, NOW. Then hes popularity was very low, but after the 911, it boomed.

2) What cover up mentality, please provide some examples?
Lets see...how about some video footage from the plane that crashed Pentagon? Or the hushus, we didnt bother to pick up the phone and call NORAD/NEADS in time, etc. etc.

Remember that this attack came from within. Which isnt really what they would expect.
This is EXACTLY the BS THEY are saying. Its pure BS. Fighters can fly you know, they can go anywhere where the threat is coming from. Also, tell me, how the heck did Finland manage to get F-18:s in the air and around our capital?

They did have fighters in the air but realize the difficulty locating planes with radar alone.
LOL. Well, thats what they are for. And Im not talking about pinpointing them, Im talking about "Hey, we have hijacked aircraft here, heading somewhere to Washington area".

If its difficult to find aircraft with radar alone, tell me what would prevent Russia/CCCP from simply installing civilian transponders to their bombers and just fly around US airspace dropping bombs? No, it doesnt work like that.

It took over an hour for first responders to get to the site? That just inst true.
Google. Here is one example:
h ttp://ww w.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=aa77

Read Gravy's take on this found in the link at the top of the post.
What? Where?

I believe that the truthers are far more guilty of this then any of the skeptics. Taking people out of context, fabricating facts, making misleading statements, this is what is dishonest.
What I sayed about Debunking 911 Myths is a fact. Check it yourself.

Check your temperatures in the NIST report.
I did.
"NIST stated that of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. … Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177)"

6) I dont believe the US government would never lie, I believe they lied to get into Iraq with the WMD claims.
...but somehow, they would not lie about 911, right?
...they lied in Vietnam war (Gulf of Tonkin incident) and in 1991 Iraq war (you remember the talk about "Iraq soldier putting little babys in the corridors to die in Kuwait hospital"? LIES), etc. etc.

I believe the government/NIST account because it is a credible report put together by a group of experts. It stands up to peer-review for the most part.
"Low propability of occurance"?

markja

27th August 2007, 08:44 PM

Why the government of the most powerful country in the world want popularity?
Bush wanted. He needed it. And now he even got to be president second time, that would have not happened if 911 hasnt happened.

They didn't gain money from the attacks, they in fact cost trillions of dollars to the American economy.
Wrong. THEY gained money, US economy lost money.

As far as civils rights and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the non-existing war in Iran, this is all politics, and nothing to do withthe facts of 9/11.
So you dont concider the motives and actions regarding 911 as politics? Oh dear, they most certantly are.

That's because they didn't expect an attack from within.
Read my prev post about this. Its BS.

They didn't have time to. Please read more about the subject, and use the search function.
Oh, but Finland did, even we wherent under attack?
WHY didnt US have time to?

What are you talking about exactly?
FEMA/NIST (cant recall which) report about why WTC7 came down.

That's your personal opinion. Again, your personal opinion.
Thats my intepretation about it, based on the examples given.

There is just no solid evidence of a inside job conspiracy.
The facts dont change to that just because you say so.

Corsair 115

27th August 2007, 08:46 PM

This is EXACTLY the BS THEY are saying. Its pure BS. Fighters can fly you know, they can go anywhere where the threat is coming from. Also, tell me, how the heck did Finland manage to get F-18:s in the air and around our capital?Air defence in reality tends to be more complicated than how it was portrayed in Top Gun.

There was also forty-plus years of Cold War mentality colouring how the U.S. air defence network was set up and operated.

Pardalis

27th August 2007, 08:48 PM

Bush wanted. He needed it. And now he even got to be president second time, that would have not happened if 911 hasnt happened.

How do you know?

Wrong. THEY gained money, US economy lost money.

Who is they, and how do you know they got money out of it?

Oh, but Finland did, even we wherent under attack?
WHY didnt US have time to?

I don't know what happened in Finland that day (and I don't care). Show me how long it took for the fighter jets to get to the capital city.

FEMA/NIST (cant recall which) report about why WTC7 came down.

The report isn't finished yet.

Thats my intepretation about it, based on the examples given.

It's not because you don't understand the words that they have twisted them.

firecoins

27th August 2007, 08:58 PM

ummm

1. US air defenses are not set up to shoot down civilian airlines.

2. The 4 hijacked civilian airlines were in the air with thousands of other civilian airliners. CIvilian airline controllers and military airline controllers were not communicating. Which planes filled with innocent lives do the jets shoot down? Hmmm wonder how come the F-16s just didn't start downing random airliners till they got the right ones.

markja

27th August 2007, 08:58 PM

Let's say all that is true. Did not the terror movement gain anything as well? I'm not sure if you saw the footage of people dancing in the streets in several Middle Eastern cities after the attacks happened, but they happened.
Yes, a bit fame. Then came the bombs. They didnt gain anything as much as Bush and hes friends did.

The real world is not like the movies. In times of war, there are things that are clasified.
Yeah, right, like not showing a SINGLE video about the plane hitting Pentagon? Whats so secret to show us a video from a camera that anyone can see?

Yes, because every single thing, from the protocol prior to 9/11
Wrong. I recall the protocol sayed exactly that in situations that demand immediate response, the authority to do something goes very, very low. I guess you can call it "situation that demands immediate response" when several aircrafts are hijacked and flown into buildings dont you?

to the knowledge of what really happens at Andrews AFB, to the previous examples of planes being lost and tracked (wiki Payne Stewart), to a frustrating chain of command that existed back then that slowed down the relaying of information, clearly... and I mean CLEARLY... backs the "official account."
Why do you think most of the planes where in Canada and Alaska on 911? Just coincidence? Based on the timelines, the problem wasnt the line of communication or byrocracy, the problem was, that people simply did NOT pick up the phone and report further what was happening. Why? Why wasnt anyone fired from that?

That's the problem with the side of the argument that risks consuming you, rather than look at the mountains of real, indisputable (by ANY expert in their fields in the public or private sector) evidence,
Which is...WHAT? Most of the metal was quickly shipped abroad so it cant be examined anymore. BTW. I recall thats very serious felony in US to tamper with evidence.

they cherry pick an out of context quote, a typo, or the tiniest disputable part of an otherwise sound theory and tout that as PROOF that it's all a lie.
Please read the paper. NIST/FEMA sayed that in the conclusion. They sayed, that the possibility that the WTC7 came down because of fire and minimal structural damage was a theory of "very low propability of occurance". Im not cherrypicking, Im telling you what they concluded!

I... never quite know what to say when someone who is defending the "truth movement" accuses ANYONE ELSE of distorting the facts. I mean, it's like the whole pit of my stomach drops out of me. I should be used to it by now, but it's never any less staggering.
Dont change the subject. Debunking 911 Myths book was really terrible, twisting of words etc. etc. Have you even read it? I have.

None of us believe what we believe because the government said so. We're skeptics,
Then why do you believe when goverment investigations say that Bin Laden did it? What if they are simply lying? How can you know? In fact, FBI doesnt even hold Bin Laden accountable for the 911 attacks, because they dont have any evidence to support it...yes, check it yourself!

We believe the evidence because EVERY SINGLE QUALIFIED EXPERT ON THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF IT agree with it.
This is absolutely and totally BS. There are many experts that totally disagree the official version of 911. Also, where did those experts you are talking about get their information? Who gave it to them? Take a wild guess... (Hint: They where not on the scene picking evidence themselfes...they didnt eavesdrop airlines communications...etc. etc. etc.)

Meanwhile, the twoofers have biologists, theologians, and philosophy professors at the TOP of their intellectual pool.
Professor of physics isnt anything? Multiple people who have degrees on structural engineering dont count? Former head of German security doesnt count? What? But Bushes & Powells word counts?!?

markja

27th August 2007, 09:05 PM

Please list the events that only had "one in a million" chance.
Lets start here:"Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."

This has been explained in many threads.
Oh yes. Fighters didnt make it there because...uh...there where problems, not jets there, fighters where directed to wrong places, etc. etc. Now ask yourself...WHY did it happen so? How could have we in Finland put up fighters so quickly to protect our capital, but you couldnt? Is our air defence really THAT MUCH stronger than yours?!? ROTFLOL!

You are the one twisting words. Steel loses half its strength at 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, not degrees Celsius.
Wrong. You are! I sayed that in 1000 degrees it looses 90% of strenght.

There is enough publicly available evidence
Produced by who? Let me guess, FEMA/NIST or other goverment officials. Where is the NEUTRAL examination? Where is the open debate and study? And WHAT evidence are you talking about, are you sure its not forged? What about the contradictinary evidence?

Drudgewire

27th August 2007, 09:07 PM

Haha, you claimed to be a skeptic with a few questions. That's a pretty dishonest presentation of yourself right off the bat when you already know all the clever twoof half-truths.

Who'd have thunk it? It's such an otherwise intellectually honest movement. :rolleyes:

markja

27th August 2007, 09:09 PM

lets look at "best theory"
Why is it best theory?

from a scientific standpoint this measns "most probable" what does that say about the probability of any other theory?
Well, NIST/FEMA didnt bother to examine any other theory than fires and little structural damage, so its easy for them to give only ONE possible theory and say that it has low propability of occurance. When no other theory is publically given, then even that "low propability" theory is the "most propabal" theory!

he columns that nIST tested matched up with what their computer simulation predicted,
You mean the twisted simulation, where variables where altered time after time to produce the pancaking effect? Is that a "simulation" really or just a joke?

realitybites

27th August 2007, 09:11 PM

Why is it best theory?

Well, NIST/FEMA didnt bother to examine any other theory than fires and little structural damage, so its easy for them to give only ONE possible theory and say that it has low propability of occurance. When no other theory is publically given, then even that "low propability" theory is the "most propabal" theory!

You mean the twisted simulation, where variables where altered time after time to produce the pancaking effect? Is that a "simulation" really or just a joke?

Perhaps you could cite one of your movement's myriad experts that show just how "little" structural damage was done.

Pardalis

27th August 2007, 09:11 PM

Markja, what are your credentials?

On what basis do you criticize the NIST report?

markja

27th August 2007, 09:14 PM

Air defence in reality tends to be more complicated than how it was portrayed in Top Gun
Well, apparently not in Finland.
But if your air defence is really so terrible, that even in case of attack it takes over an hour to get fighter to protect your capital, well, lets just say that...maybe you should learn some Finnish air defence technics? How about it?

Pardalis

27th August 2007, 09:17 PM

You keep talking about Finland, could you provide us with the information as to how long it took for the fighter jets to get scrambled and get to Helsinki?

defaultdotxbe

27th August 2007, 09:17 PM

Yeah, right, like not showing a SINGLE video about the plane hitting Pentagon? Whats so secret to show us a video from a camera that anyone can see?
actualyl there are 2 that were relased very early on, there is also the citgo vid and the hotel one, both are also released, according to the FBI no other videos show a plane, what more do you want?

Wrong. I recall the protocol sayed exactly that in situations that demand immediate response, the authority to do something goes very, very low. I guess you can call it "situation that demands immediate response" when several aircrafts are hijacked and flown into buildings dont you?
yes, it demanded immediate response, however "response" doesnt automatically mean "shoot it down" that order can only come from the president, look up the posse commitatus act if you dont believe me

Which is...WHAT? Most of the metal was quickly shipped abroad so it cant be examined anymore. BTW. I recall thats very serious felony in US to tamper with evidence.
so then why isnt he FBI filing charges against anyone? maybe its because they didnt need the steel as evidence so they ok'd its cleanup

NIST also had acces to whatever they wanted, it wasnt necessary to look at each and every individual peice you knwo

Please read the paper. NIST/FEMA sayed that in the conclusion. They sayed, that the possibility that the WTC7 came down because of fire and minimal structural damage was a theory of "very low propability of occurance". Im not cherrypicking, Im telling you what they concluded!
that "conclusion" either came from the FEMA report (which was released very early and rushed) or from a NIST interim report (i cant remember which its from)

the NIST final report on WTC7 is not complete yet, so NIST has no conclusions yet on WTC7

Then why do you believe when goverment investigations say that Bin Laden did it? What if they are simply lying? How can you know? In fact, FBI doesnt even hold Bin Laden accountable for the 911 attacks, because they dont have any evidence to support it...yes, check it yourself!
bin laden himself confessed, this however doesnt constitue hard evidence (this is an important distiction to make) for an FBI investigation because it came into their possession trhough an unknown chain of custody

its all about criminal rights in america, im sure most any other country would have tried him in absentia and sentenced him to death already

Professor of physics isnt anything? Multiple people who have degrees on structural engineering dont count? Former head of German security doesnt count? What? But Bushes & Powells word counts?!?

when they are commenting on chemistry, demolition, military procedures and other things outside their area of expertise their opinion is no more valid than yours or mine

CurtC

27th August 2007, 09:18 PM

Yeah, right, like not showing a SINGLE video about the plane hitting Pentagon? Whats so secret to show us a video from a camera that anyone can see?Do you have some reason to suspect that there are other videos of the plane hitting the Pentagon that we haven't seen? That would be major news.

Please read the paper. NIST/FEMA sayed that in the conclusion. They sayed, that the possibility that the WTC7 came down because of fire and minimal structural damage was a theory of "very low propability of occurance". Im not cherrypicking, Im telling you what they concluded!No, you're telling us a sentence from the intermediate report. Their conclusion is not yet published.

markja

27th August 2007, 09:18 PM

How do you know?
I already answered. He wasnt popular enought.

Who is they, and how do you know they got money out of it?
Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz (whatever), etc. They all own massive amounts of stock of Halliburton, oil companies, military companies, etc. etc. All of them are making HUUUUUGE profits from 911.

I don't know what happened in Finland that day (and I don't care). Show me how long it took for the fighter jets to get to the capital city.
I doubt its not documented anywhere in written form. We have 3 airbases and on each airbase, there are always 2 fighters ready to go in 3-5 minutes (and if I recall correctly, 2 more in 15 minutes or so). If they wherent, they couldnt intercept any foreign aircraft either. So couldnt yours.

The report isn't finished yet.
BS. Its right here h ttp://ww w.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm

It's not because you don't understand the words that they have twisted them.
And you do?

Pardalis

27th August 2007, 09:20 PM

I already answered.

Nope.

He wasnt popular enought.Proof?

Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz (whatever), etc. They all own massive amounts of stock of Halliburton, oil companies, military companies, etc. etc. All of them are making HUUUUUGE profits from 911.Proof?

I doubt its not documented anywhere in written form.:rolleyes:

markja

27th August 2007, 09:21 PM

1. US air defenses are not set up to shoot down civilian airlines.
Aaaah! So all what the Soviets would have had to do is to put on civilian transponders and just fly all their bombers to the Washington, and they wouldnt have been shot down? RIGHT. ROTFLOL! Look, they shoot down anything you point them to and fire. Its that simple.

The 4 hijacked civilian airlines were in the air with thousands of other civilian airliners. CIvilian airline controllers and military airline controllers were not communicating.
They had phone bridges established.

Which planes filled with innocent lives do the jets shoot down?
Well, maybe that would a thing to wonder AFTER the jets would have even been SENT in the general area where they where needed?!?

Hmmm wonder how come the F-16s just didn't start downing random airliners till they got the right ones.
Strawman.

defaultdotxbe

27th August 2007, 09:22 PM

BS. Its right here h ttp://ww w.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm
and NISTs WTC7 report?

you do realize NIST and FEMA are two separate organizations that conducted independent investigations, right?

markja

27th August 2007, 09:23 PM

Perhaps you could cite one of your movement's myriad experts that show just how "little" structural damage was done.
Strawman. Read the FEMA report or what I posted quoted from it.

parky76

27th August 2007, 09:24 PM

Lets be frank. If 9-11 did not happen, the Iraq war would not have happaned. Nor would the chance of attacking Iran be high. 9-11 made it all possible.

the bush administration has used 9-11 to give them everything they could have ever wanted. and if it wasnt for the democrats, there would be american flags in tehran as we speak.

defaultdotxbe

27th August 2007, 09:25 PM

realitybites

27th August 2007, 09:25 PM

Still waiting on that expert analysis on how little the towers were damaged.

I know you guys have tons and tons of experts to choose from, so picking out a quote or posting a link shouldn't be too much of a task.

markja

27th August 2007, 09:25 PM

Markja, what are your credentials?
What are your so that you can say its good report?

On what basis do you criticize the NIST report?
I didnt criticize anything that it sayed, only the way it sayed it. FEMA report (building performance study) stated that fires and structural damage causing the collapse was low propability of occurance event.

Pardalis

27th August 2007, 09:31 PM

What are your so that you can say its good report?

I'm an illustrator, and I have no credentials to base any judgement on the NIST report. I read it and thought I had no reason not to believe it.

What are yours?

I didnt criticize anything that it sayed, only the way it sayed it.How should they have said it? On what basis do you judge that they didn't state their conclusions the right way?

FEMA report (building performance study) stated that fires and structural damage causing the collapse was low propability of occurance event.The NIST is more qualified to establish the cause of the collapse, and their final report isn't finished yet.

markja

27th August 2007, 09:35 PM

actualyl there are 2 that were relased very early on, there is also the citgo vid and the hotel one, both are also released, according to the FBI no other videos show a plane, what more do you want?

Do you mean the video from the parking place where there was a WRONG DATE and NO PLANE (just small smoke and explosion)? What other video? Where? Links please?

yes, it demanded immediate response, however "response" doesnt automatically mean "shoot it down" that order can only come from the president, look up the posse commitatus act if you dont believe me
Wrong again. First, response could have been simply to "PUT THE FIGHTERS IN THE AIR TO PROTECT WASHINGTON"...it wasnt. Second, immediate response doesnt need authorisation from the president. If there is plane heading for the Washington, they can shoot it down because the situation is immediate.

so then why isnt he FBI filing charges against anyone?.
Maybe because 911 was inside job. They wanted to get rid of the evidence.

maybe its because they didnt need the steel as evidence
ROTFLOL! First time in the history, 3 steel framed building collapse quickly, and you say that they DIDNT NEED THE STEEL as evidence (to investigate what happaned)?!? ROTFLOL!

NIST also had acces to whatever they wanted, it wasnt necessary to look at each and every individual peice you knwo
Oh yes. But can you trust NIST? Now they could have simply picked some pieces (or even change them later on) and say something about them. Open investigation would have meant something different.

that "conclusion" either came from the FEMA report (which was released very early and rushed) or from a NIST interim report (i cant remember which its from)
FEMA. After over 8 months of investigation.

the NIST final report on WTC7 is not complete yet, so NIST has no conclusions yet on WTC7
LOL. So it takes NIST 6 years to investigate it? OK, lets see then what they have to say.

bin laden himself confessed
I bet 1000 other terrorists also confessed. Every week people confess killing Kennedy. So what? It proves absolutely NOTHING. He wants the glory maybe. But remember, that hes first reactions where, that he didnt claim it was hes job. Only later come some "interesting" video where he is "confessing".

, this however doesnt constitue hard evidence (this is an important distiction to make) for an FBI investigation because it came into their possession trhough an unknown chain of custody
...aaahh...yes, FBI understands that it could be simply faked video. But you dont? Why?

markja

27th August 2007, 09:37 PM

Do you have some reason to suspect that there are other videos of the plane hitting the Pentagon that we haven't seen? That would be major news.
Well, there are hundreds of security cameras in Pentagon area. Also, FBI grapped all films from the nearby places MINUTES after the attack (fast action, isnt it? It takes over an hour to get single fighter on the Washington, but it only takes FBI minutes to grap all video casettes that where filming where the plane came that hit Pentagon? Maybe US air defence should learn few things about "quick response" from FBI what do you think eh?).

Pardalis

27th August 2007, 09:38 PM

Well, there are hundreds of security cameras in Pentagon area.

How do you know?

Also, FBI grapped all films from the nearby places MINUTES after the attack

How do you know?

markja

27th August 2007, 09:38 PM

Nope.
Stop trolling. I already answered. If you cannot read, that not my problem.

Proof?
Polls about Bushs support. Google.

Proof?
Google. I cant provide you everything on silver plate if you dont know anything about 911 beforehand. Do some homework please.

realitybites

27th August 2007, 09:39 PM

::: Jeopardy! Theme :::

beachnut

27th August 2007, 09:39 PM

First a small intro :). Im from Finland and english isnt my native language, so please excuse me for poor spelling etc. I bet its better than your Finnish anyway so...

3) The fact that US, being the only superpower in the world, was unable to get fighter up in the air to protect its capital, when under major surprise attack and imminent danger to capital...I recall it took over an hour to get the fighters there AFTER the WTC was hit and everyone knew there where multiple hijackings in progress. Orcourse there are "explanations" on "why" it happened to happen so. Well, here in tiny Finland, we got interceptors flying around Helsinkin BEFORE Pentagon was struck...come on, are you really buying the "US just cant protect the capital even in hour" explanation?!?

Yes, I know, none of these really absolutely give PROOF that 911 was inside job. Sure. But... Id have zillion more questions to ask, but Id be very happy if you could point out some errors in my information and/or logics so far...
We are a free country, we try. In our country the military is controlled, like most free nations, by the civilian leaders. Our military did not fly armed over our country looking for targets! We do not shoot down airliners that are hijacked, 9/11 was a first. We had no real idea there was an attack until the second plane hit; start you clock from then. Then tell me which of the 4500 flights you want shot down, and how to find a plane we do not even know where it is at? It is easy to look back and see the big picture, but on 9/11 no one knew the next target. This is not a valid 9/11 truth point.

Next time someone says we have lost our rights, please get a list and share it with me. I can not think of a right I have lost. I just traveled 6 thousand miles by road through over 16 of our United States and I was not stopped, questioned, or detained or put in a FEMA camp.

Take some time to check out the truth, not the 9/11 truth movement. The 9/11 truth movement is just lies, pure junk.

Our government is made up of people, do all people tell the truth?

The turth movement is not a diverse set of people. They are biased and make up lies about 9/11.

Where is the oil in Afgan land? Did you like the Taliban? Did you like Saddam? you are welcome to the forum, good luck, I think your English is great, do not pick up my bad habits (poor writing)

markja

27th August 2007, 09:39 PM

How do you know?
Shows on pictures and raports. Stop trolling.

How do you know?
Google something like FBI cameras pentagon etc. Stop trolling.

Pardalis

27th August 2007, 09:41 PM

Polls about Bushs support. Google.

You made the claim that Bush didn't have enough support, you should have the poll handy. I for one doubt that there was any significant poll done prior to 9/11 since Bush just had gotten elected.

If you could provide it that would be great. Remember, you make the claim, you support it with proof.

Pardalis

27th August 2007, 09:42 PM

Shows on pictures and raports.

Show me said reports and pictures. It's your claim.

Google something like FBI cameras pentagon etc.

I'll probably end up in conspiracy sites. Provide your proof, it's your claim.

markja

27th August 2007, 09:43 PM

so where would those soviet come from? it wouldnt be from OUTSIDE US airspace, would it? cuz thats kinda where NORAD was looking for stuff
I dont know about your air defence radars, but here in Finland our radars look 360 degrees. If yours can only look into sea and north-Canada, Im very sorry for you. But somehow I doubt.

markja

27th August 2007, 09:45 PM

I'm an illustrator, and I have no credentials to base any judgement on the NIST report. I read it and thought I had no reason not to believe it.
Why not?

How should they have said it? On what basis do you judge that they didn't state their conclusions the right way?
Well, just plain "we dont know, but we doubt that it wasnt the fire and the small damage that flattened WTC7".

The NIST is more qualified to establish the cause of the collapse, and their final report isn't finished yet.
Yeah, if it ever will...

R.Mackey

27th August 2007, 09:45 PM

If I might clear something up for both sides...

The "low order of probability" comment comes from the FEMA investigation of WTC 7. NIST has never said any such thing. The FEMA report was completed years ago, and is quite cursory. The NIST report, as most are aware, has been repeatedly delayed as its scope has grown, and is now anticipated towards the end of this year.

FEMA did indeed state that their proposed collapse hypothesis was of "a low probability of occurrence." However, the report needs to be read in order to understand what that statement means. FEMA's words, in context, are as follows:

[Page 5-30] A further hypothesis that would help explain the long time lapse between the collapse of WTC 1 and the collapse of WTC 7 would be that the masonry wall and door resisted the fire for a number of hours, but eventually failed. The new opening then allowed the fire (still supplied with a continuous discharge of fuel oil) to flow into the mechanical equipment room, envelope elements of the fireproofed trusses, and eventually cause a buckling collapse of one or both of them. For the fire to last long enough for this to occur, the flow rate would have to be around 30 gpm. At a rate of 30 gpm, the fuel would last for about 7 hours and would produce a fire of about 60 MW. The possibility that such a scenario could occur would be dependent on the specific construction details of the wall, the door, and the fireproofing on the truss.

Another hypothesis that has been advanced is that the pipe was penetrated by debris at a point near the southwest corner where there was more damage caused by debris from the collapse of the towers. This would have resulted in fuel oil spilling onto the 5th floor, forming a large pool. At some point, this would have ignited and produced the required fire. This hypothesis has the advantage of assuming a pipe break in the area most severely impacted by the tower debris and accounts for the long delay from the initial incident to the collapse of WTC 7. The principal challenge is that such a fire would have more severely exposed Truss 3. If Truss 3 has been the point of collapse initiation, it is not expected that the first apparent sign of collapse would be the subsidence of the east penthouse. […]

Further investigation is required to determine whether the preceding scenarios did or could have actually occurred.

[Page 5-31] The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analysis are needed to resolve this issue.

Source (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf)

These scenarios involve a large number of steps. All the steps appear plausible, but FEMA was unable to properly investigate how the fueling system worked, etc., so the scenarios above were largely hypothetical at the time FEMA wrote it. If we were to investigate those steps, and find that FEMA's speculation was in fact predicted, then the scenarios would immediately go from "a low probability of occurrence" to a "high order of probability." This is part of NIST's investigation.

Also, since the FEMA report was published, we have learned much more about WTC 7:

The amount of damage caused by WTC 1's collapse has been understood to be much greater than previously thought
We have a better understanding of the collapse initiation
Many more videos of both impacts and collapse have been recovered
NIST has done an in-depth study of the emergency fueling systems

What this all goes to show is that you have to actually read the FEMA report to know what it contains. It is a very limited report, limited by time, money, and access. FEMA admits as much. There is no reason to take their statements -- that they could only propose speculative scenarios, and that such would be considered improbable without further work -- out of context.

If one really wants to understand, I suggest one go to the source.

realitybites

27th August 2007, 09:46 PM

Why not?

Well, just plain "we dont know, but we doubt that it wasnt the fire and the small damage that flattened WTC7".

Yeah, if it ever will...

You're not likely to believe it anyway, Markja.

Pardalis

27th August 2007, 09:49 PM

Why not?

It was clear and it made sense to me. And I have no reason to believe they are lying.

What are your credentials?

defaultdotxbe

27th August 2007, 09:49 PM

Do you mean the video from the parking place where there was a WRONG DATE and NO PLANE (just small smoke and explosion)? What other video? Where? Links please?
there are 2 gate camera videos, the FBI has stated those are the only ones showing the plane, if you want more i dont know what to tell ya

If there is plane heading for the Washington, they can shoot it down because the situation is immediate.
i can tell you didnt look up posse commitatus

Maybe because 911 was inside job. They wanted to get rid of the evidence.
your right, guilty until proven innocent is a much better system

ROTFLOL! First time in the history, 3 steel framed building collapse quickly, and you say that they DIDNT NEED THE STEEL as evidence (to investigate what happaned)?!? ROTFLOL!

Oh yes. But can you trust NIST? Now they could have simply picked some pieces (or even change them later on) and say something about them. Open investigation would have meant something different.
so what reason do yo uhave to not trust NIST? or is this more guilty until proven innocent?

BTW NISTs investigation was open, they released several interim reports and held open meetings to discuss their methods and procedures

FEMA. After over 8 months of investigation.

LOL. So it takes NIST 6 years to investigate it? OK, lets see then what they have to say.

NISts WTC7 investigation didnt begin until after they published the WTC1+2 report, have you read any press releases from NIST?

I bet 1000 other terrorists also confessed. Every week people confess killing Kennedy. So what? It proves absolutely NOTHING. He wants the glory maybe. But remember, that hes first reactions where, that he didnt claim it was hes job. Only later come some "interesting" video where he is "confessing".
both the denials of involvement were published in newspapers via thirdhand sources, which means they would be even easier to fake than a video

...aaahh...yes, FBI understands that it could be simply faked video. But you dont? Why?
i noticed you completely ignored my statement in criminal rights. Why?

it has nothing to do with the FBI thinking its fake, it has to do with the law doesnt allow it to be used as evidence, as i also mentioned im sure theres plenty of courntries that would have already convicted bin laden, but the united states has this bill of rights things that get in the way of stuff liek that

defaultdotxbe

27th August 2007, 09:51 PM

I dont know about your air defence radars, but here in Finland our radars look 360 degrees. If yours can only look into sea and north-Canada, Im very sorry for you. But somehow I doubt.
they look 360 degrees, but the look outward, not inward, its not a difficult concept to grasp

markja

27th August 2007, 09:54 PM

Show me said reports and pictures. It's your claim.
I'll probably end up in conspiracy sites. Provide your proof, it's your claim.
Oh yes. So whatever I find in the net, its "conspiracy site" anyway.
Edited for civilityIf you dont know anything about Pentagon and dont bother to look for the site that is FINE WITH YOU (IE. its not "conspiracy info site"), then have it. I couldnt care less.

Here is the info and even some pictures from Pentagon, but ofcourse, you ignore them because they are "Conspiracy site". h ttp://ww w.infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm

Please re-read your membership agreement, and remain civil.

Pardalis

27th August 2007, 09:56 PM

Don't get upset markja, it's only natural that I ask you to back up your claims.

markja

27th August 2007, 09:57 PM

It was clear and it made sense to me. And I have no reason to believe they are lying.
Donald Duck is clear and makes sense to you too, but you still dont have reason to believe it. Why would you believe it? If 911 was somehow inside job, then its very likely that that raport is also inside job, so you cant trust it.

markja

27th August 2007, 09:58 PM

Don't get upset markja, it's only natural that I ask you to back up your claims.
BS. You asked me to give source and then told that its not going to be good enought anyway, because its from "conspiracy site" anyway.

Pardalis

27th August 2007, 09:58 PM

If 911 was somehow inside job, then its very likely that that raport is also inside job, so you cant trust it.

You have to prove it was an inside job first.

1337m4n

27th August 2007, 10:00 PM

Oh yes. So whatever I find in the net, its "conspiracy site" anyway.
Edited for civilityIf you dont know anything about Pentagon and dont bother to look for the site that is FINE WITH YOU (IE. its not "conspiracy info site"), then have it. I couldnt care less.

Here is the info and even some pictures from Pentagon, but ofcourse, you ignore them because they are "Conspiracy site". h ttp://ww w.infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm

You have no business cursing at people who have been calm and patient with you.

You come onto this forum claiming that you were "just asking questions". Most of the people at JREF have a kind opinion of human nature, so when somebody claims they are "just asking questions", we tend to believe them at first.

You have betrayed that trust. You were not "just asking questions", as evidenced by the fact that you are now cursing at someone who sought merely to answer your "questions". If you are not satisfied with said answers, politely explain why. There is no need for this behavior.

markja

27th August 2007, 10:01 PM

they look 360 degrees, but the look outward, not inward, its not a difficult concept to grasp
ROTFLOL!
So they look 360 degrees, but only outward. So they only look 180 degrees then right? Right? Or are you claiming, that military has no radars inside USA, so that if any Soviet or Cuban bomber would have gotten throught, it could have flown without any interception all around US? ROTFLOL!

Again, I dont know about your air defence that much, but if you air defence really sucks that badly, ROTFLOL! Even the Swedes have better air defence - you know, military has radars on whole country!

But those claims of yours are total BS. Military in US has radar all around US, not just on the borders. Otherwise it could not co-ordinate fighters or any military aircrafts at all when they fly inside US.

markja

27th August 2007, 10:02 PM

You have to prove it was an inside job first.
But you dont have to prove it was done by Bin Laden? Cool. Really cool.
OK, stack the evidence. FBI doesnt have it. Do you have it?

R.Mackey

27th August 2007, 10:04 PM

markja

27th August 2007, 10:05 PM

You have no business cursing at people who have been calm and patient with you.
Calm and patient? Asking me to give a source and then say that the source is anyway some "conspiracy site so its no good"? LOL!

You have betrayed that trust. You were not "just asking questions", as evidenced by the fact that you are now cursing at someone who sought merely to answer your "questions".
He is merely trolling.
He claims that he does not know for a fact that there are hundreds of cameras in Pentagon. He doesnt want to check from the web himself and my sources arent good enought because he calls them "conspiracy sites".

If you are not satisfied with said answers, politely explain why. There is no need for this behavior.
I have, but you seem to continoulsly have trouble understanding what I write and I have to write it again and again and again.

beachnut

27th August 2007, 10:08 PM

Well, there are hundreds of security cameras in Pentagon area. Also, FBI grapped all films from the nearby places MINUTES after the attack (fast action, isnt it? It takes over an hour to get single fighter on the Washington, but it only takes FBI minutes to grap all video casettes that where filming where the plane came that hit Pentagon? Maybe US air defence should learn few things about "quick response" from FBI what do you think eh?).
What? No you stop posting junk. Proof there are hundreds of photos the FBI has of flight 77? You are saying the FBI is hiding stuff? You imply there is video evidence of flight 77? Did you know we do not need it? We have physical evidence proving flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

First of all hundreds of people saw flight 77 fly and hit the Pentagon. So we do not need a video. Flight 77 was found in the Pentagon, the size of the pieces were such that it matched the speed of over 500 mph.

So the video stuff is crap. You need no videos. The military in our country is free to speak up on this issue, and no one at the Pentagon, save a few idiots, has said there were anything wrong with what was in the main stream news.

9/11 truth is really a cult of lies. They name themselves like the NAZI propagada did its death camps/work camps!!! Truth/LIes

beachnut

27th August 2007, 10:09 PM

markja

27th August 2007, 10:10 PM

I think I just better back off.

The people answering to this topic mostly have prettymuch zero information about 911, since I have to explain even the basic details to them (starting from yes, you have radars, ever heard of them & yes, there are security cams in Pentagon, surprising, etc.). Maybe I will come back later to see if someone can really ANSWER the question and not just keep trolling about unimportant basic facts that everyone discussion about 911 should have already had. So far prettymuch all I have heard is like directly from G.W. Bushes speeches, all the explanations etc. etc. No critisism, no thinking, just believing every stupid thing some official has sayed to you. Yeah, right.

markja

27th August 2007, 10:16 PM

Proof there are hundreds of photos the FBI has of flight 77?
Strawman again. I havent claimed that there are hundreds of photos from flight 77. I have sayed that there are hundreds of security cameras in Pentagon Edited for civility

You are saying the FBI is hiding stuff? You imply there is video evidence of flight 77?
Oh yes, FBI took it.

We have physical evidence proving flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
You have your officials CLAIMS that it hit there. Where is the evidence? Where did the engines go (no, dont show me the picture about that small thing thats not anything near the engine size of those planes had).

First of all hundreds of people saw flight 77 fly and hit the Pentagon.
I havent heard more than few people. And their testimonies dont match. Some say it came from there and other say it came from somewhere else.

So the video stuff is crap. You need no videos.
LOL.
War is Peace. Freedon is Slavery. Ignorance is Strenght.

The military in our country is free to speak up on this issue
Edited for civility Its not. They have gag orders and secrets to keep.

9/11 truth is really a cult of lies. They name themselves like the NAZI propagada did its death camps/work camps!!!
According to Godwins Law, I just won this debate. Thank you.

beachnut

27th August 2007, 10:17 PM

Reality Believer

27th August 2007, 10:18 PM

Is anyone else having a "Groundhog Day" moment about now?

1337m4n

27th August 2007, 10:19 PM

Calm and patient? Asking me to give a source and then say that the source is anyway some "conspiracy site so its no good"? LOL!

He is merely trolling.
He claims that he does not know for a fact that there are hundreds of cameras in Pentagon. He doesnt want to check from the web himself and my sources arent good enought because he calls them "conspiracy sites".

I have, but you seem to continoulsly have trouble understanding what I write and I have to write it again and again and again.

Calm yourself, markja. You are allowing your bias to blind you.

Yes, he has been calm and patient with you. If his argumentation is poor, then his argumentation is poor, but he's still being polite with you. We do not ban or suspend people for disagreeing with our views (unlike many Truther sites) but you are expected to show respect in debates. You DID sign the membership agreement to join this forum, did you not?

It is illogical to be angry at him for something you are doing yourself. You are mad at him because he dismissed your source as a "conspiracy site". But did you not do essentially the same thing with the Commission Report, where you said "If 911 was somehow inside job, then its very likely that that raport is also inside job, so you cant trust it". So you have dismissed the Commission Report in the same manner that he has dismissed your "conspiracy site". It is expected that you would hold yourself to the same standards as you hold others.

However, I think if you allow Pardalis to explain himself, you will find that he would not simply ignore a well-reasoned argument because it came from a "conspiracy site". I would explain his words, but frankly, I think it'd be more effective if I allowed him to explain himself. So that's what I'll do.

I know it can be frustrating to have to post the same thing over and over because the people you're talking to don't seem to be understanding. So help us understand. Help us understand, by talking to us calmly and clearly, instead of making posts filled with sarcastic remarks followed by "LOL" and "ROTFLOL". Such posts do not help us to understand.

The senior members of JREF have heard all these arguments before, and get frustrated when a newbie comes and repeats them without searching back through the forums. I assure you they do not intend to be as callous as they are. Please be patient with then, and soon they will start to trust you.

That's all I'll say here. These forums are about mutual respect. Help make it work...

beachnut

27th August 2007, 10:20 PM

Strawman again. I havent claimed that there are hundreds of photos from flight 77. I have sayed that there are hundreds of security cameras in Pentagon Edited for civility.

Oh yes, FBI took it.

You have your officials CLAIMS that it hit there. Where is the evidence? Where did the engines go (no, dont show me the picture about that small thing thats not anything near the engine size of those planes had).

I havent heard more than few people. And their testimonies dont match. Some say it came from there and other say it came from somewhere else.

LOL.
War is Peace. Freedon is Slavery. Ignorance is Strenght.

Edited for civility Its not. They have gag orders and secrets to keep.

According to Godwins Law, I just won this debate. Thank you.
You have just told a bunch of lies, if you are doing this on purpose.

Edited for civility

realitybites

27th August 2007, 10:20 PM

Pardalis

27th August 2007, 10:20 PM

About the videotapes:

http://www.flight77.info/dec1/mcquredec05.jpg
http://www.flight77.info/dec1/mcquredec06.jpg

So there are 85 videotapes, 56 of which don't show the Pentagon building nor the crash, and from the remaining 29, 16 didn't show the impact either. Of the remaining 13, only one showed the impact, the one we all saw I imagine.

And I don't see anywhere where it states that it took the FBI an hour to gather them all.

ETA: actually markja didn't even say an hour, he said minutes...

Well, there are hundreds of security cameras in Pentagon area. Also, FBI grapped all films from the nearby places MINUTES after the attack (fast action, isnt it? It takes over an hour to get single fighter on the Washington, but it only takes FBI minutes to grap all video casettes that where filming where the plane came that hit Pentagon? Maybe US air defence should learn few things about "quick response" from FBI what do you think eh?).

pomeroo

27th August 2007, 10:27 PM

Bush wanted. He needed it. And now he even got to be president second time, that would have not happened if 911 hasnt happened.

Nonsense. Why did he need it? Why wouldn't he have won a second term if the jihadist attacks hadn't occurred? Yiou are speculating wildly to support your preconceived conclusions.

Wrong. THEY gained money, US economy lost money.

"Wrong"? You write silly stuff and act as though you know what you're talking about. There is no "they." The U.S. economy undeniably suffered a trillion-dollar hit, for which Bush--predictably--was blamed, but neither Bush nor Cheney made any money. Why promote falsehoods if you have a real case?

So you dont concider the motives and actions regarding 911 as politics? Oh dear, they most certantly are.

Bush and Cheney are retiring from public life in roughly a year-and-a-half. Why should they care about abridging civil liberties? Was their goal to set up a fascist state and turn it over to Hillary Clinton? Your understanding of politics is so hopelessly shallow, you could easily pass for an American leftist. This is what happens when you read loony-left blogs to the exclusion of all serious material.

Viper Daimao

27th August 2007, 10:31 PM

markja, please stop cussing, it is against forum rules. And I'll ask you to also please look into the evidence with an open mind. You have not really gotten one fact correct, or at least characterized one correctly.

Yes radars look 360 degrees, but only with a limited distance. The army's radar is situated on the coast, and does not cover the interior. There have been a few threads on this, why not search the forum and find them. Even have lots of radar coverage maps and posts from actual pilots and airtraffic controllers.

All of your claims have been debunked years ago really. Please take a moment to look around and search and keep an open mind to the truth.

Pardalis

27th August 2007, 10:36 PM

If find this interesting:

3) The fact that US, being the only superpower in the world, was unable to get fighter up in the air to protect its capital, when under major surprise attack and imminent danger to capital...I recall it took over an hour to get the fighters there AFTER the WTC was hit and everyone knew there where multiple hijackings in progress. Orcourse there are "explanations" on "why" it happened to happen so. Well, here in tiny Finland, we got interceptors flying around Helsinkin BEFORE Pentagon was struck...come on, are you really buying the "US just cant protect the capital even in hour" explanation?!?

Markja, you said that the Finnish air defense (I guess that's what it's called) scrambled their jets faster than the US.

Is there any way you can substanciate that? That would be interesting to know.

A W Smith

27th August 2007, 10:38 PM

Bush wanted. He needed it. And now he even got to be president second time, that would have not happened if 911 hasnt happened.
Why would he need more popularity less than 8 months after his inauguration for a four year term?

Wrong. THEY gained money, US economy lost money.
provide evidence of who gained money beyond the losses our country suffered. it almost tanked an airline industry that used oil. The pipelines that troofers claim would benefit the US were never built. there is rampant sabotage.

So you dont concider the motives and actions regarding 911 as politics? Oh dear, they most certantly are.

radical Islamic extremists who preach death to "Infidel' westerners are not preaching politics. They are preaching religious extremism. Or are you an apologist?

Read my prev post about this. Its BS.Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the defense strategy carry over from the cold war. For four decades we looked beyond our borders for threats. In fact a large portion of terrorist threats from the post cold war era were from beyond our borders.

Oh, but Finland did, even we wherent under attack?
WHY didnt US have time to?
yours is a relatively tiny country compared to the US. there is no sense deploying regular defense excercises over Iowa for instance. It was unfathomable that anyone would launch an attack in the air from within our borders. Your argument is one from incredulity.

FEMA/NIST (cant recall which) report about why WTC7 came down.

Thats my intepretation about it, based on the examples given.

The facts dont change to that just because you say so.

the NIST building 7 report is incomplete. you scoff at how long it is taking yet in those same six years you have come up with nothing. no facts. just videos with sound embellishments. snippets of quotes taken out of context. sound bites, outright lies, deceptions, false claims, junk science. and the mentally ill paraded around as experts.

pomeroo

27th August 2007, 10:43 PM

Strawman again. I havent claimed that there are hundreds of photos from flight 77. I have sayed that there are hundreds of security cameras in Pentagon Edited for civility

When you claimed earlier to have read the Popular Mechanics book, I assumed that you, a conspiracy liar, were lying. Now, you generously provide proof. As a reader of the PM book would know, the Philips LTC 1261 security cameras were set at a shutter speed too slow to catch the image of an object moving over 750 feet per second. This fact has been noted on this forum many times.

Oh yes, FBI took it.

You have your officials CLAIMS that it hit there. Where is the evidence? Where did the engines go (no, dont show me the picture about that small thing thats not anything near the engine size of those planes had).

Ah, we get the idea. The wreckage of the aircraft and the human remains identified by forensic examiners don't count as evidence because all the investigative work was done by hundreds of members of your mathematically-impossible conspiracy. I know: you're just asking questions.

I havent heard more than few people. And their testimonies dont match. Some say it came from there and other say it came from somewhere else.

A very silly fraud named Craig Ranke, "Lyte Trip," hawks a DVD that makes the same absurd claim. You should send him your money pronto. He assures his brain-dead fans that he will never stoop to taking his bogus "evidence" to a real news outlet.

LOL.
War is Peace. Freedon is Slavery. Ignorance is Strenght.

You must be very strong.

Edited for civility Its not. They have gag orders and secrets to keep.

The BS is shoveled furiously by your side, not by the rationalists. Democrats in the military would not acquiesce in a mass murder committed by a Presdient whose policies they oppose. You are talking utter nonsense.

According to Godwins Law, I just won this debate. Thank you.

Well, that's the first debate ever won by a conspiracy liar.

defaultdotxbe

27th August 2007, 10:54 PM

Strawman again. I havent claimed that there are hundreds of photos from flight 77. I have sayed that there are hundreds of security cameras in Pentagon Edited for civility.
and where did you hear they have hundreds of cameras in a position to catch the plane impact? or is this just an assumption?

tsire

27th August 2007, 11:58 PM

Yes, NOW. Then hes popularity was very low, but after the 911, it boomed.

So the benefit of having a popularity surge 3 years before and election would be?

Lets see...how about some video footage from the plane that crashed Pentagon? Or the hushus, we didnt bother to pick up the phone and call NORAD/NEADS in time, etc. etc.

But they did contact NORAD in time. They were tracking it the entire time. Why do we need video footage when there is incredible evidence to suggest a plane hit?

This is EXACTLY the BS THEY are saying. Its pure BS. Fighters can fly you know, they can go anywhere where the threat is coming from. Also, tell me, how the heck did Finland manage to get F-18:s in the air and around our capital?

Of course they can fly, but as fast as the airplanes are they still take time to get to the area of the plane.

LOL. Well, thats what they are for. And Im not talking about pinpointing them, Im talking about "Hey, we have hijacked aircraft here, heading somewhere to Washington area".

If its difficult to find aircraft with radar alone, tell me what would prevent Russia/CCCP from simply installing civilian transponders to their bombers and just fly around US airspace dropping bombs? No, it doesnt work like that.

And do you realize all the other aircraft that would have been in the air at the time? Not to mention the issues they would have with shooting down a civilian aircraft, if they could get to it.

And all air traffic is monitored, it is a lot easier when you are 10 minutes away from your target then when you have to fly all the way from Russia. I dont think you have any clue whatsoever with respect to how air traffic functions in North America.

Google. Here is one example:
h ttp://ww w.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of _9/11=aa77

I think anyone that saw that on TV that day, or anyone who has seen the Naudet Brothers Documentry can easily disprove anything there.

What? Where?

That link I posted at the top of my post, its also at the top of this forum.

What I sayed about Debunking 911 Myths is a fact. Check it yourself.

You said nothing of the sort.

I did.
"NIST stated that of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. … Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177)"

Which was insufficient to bring the towers down?

Quote:
6) I dont believe the US government would never lie, I believe they lied to get into Iraq with the WMD claims.
...but somehow, they would not lie about 911, right?
...they lied in Vietnam war (Gulf of Tonkin incident) and in 1991 Iraq war (you remember the talk about "Iraq soldier putting little babys in the corridors to die in Kuwait hospital"? LIES), etc. etc.

Completely different. People who cant see the difference between Operation Northwoods or things of that nature are delusional. 9/11 killed thousands of Americans DIRECTLY, where the others didnt.
If they are lying about 9/11, they have done a good job covering it up. Im not going to accuse the government of lying without evidence.

"Low propability of occurance"?

Already addressed.

Arkan_Wolfshade

28th August 2007, 01:41 AM

REMINDER:

. . .
Additional Rules for posting in the JREF Topics, General Topics & Forum Topics sections
. . .

Posts must be on topic to the thread subject. On this Forum thread drift is expected but must follow from the discussion.
“Attack the argument, not the arguer." Having your opinion, claim or argument challenged, doubted or dismissed is not attacking the arguer.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90347[/LIST]

chillzero

28th August 2007, 01:52 AM

Thanks Arkan.

Everyone, return this to some form of civil debate, and review your membership agreements. I am asking for some admin attention for some users having infracted and split several posts.

Any comments about this mod warning should be taken to Forum Mgt, not addressed here in-thread.

CJOKUSAP

28th August 2007, 01:59 AM

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the defense strategy carry over from the cold war. For four decades we looked beyond our borders for threats. In fact a large portion of terrorist threats from the post cold war era were from beyond our borders.
Two words for you, TIMOTHY McVEIGH!

the NIST building 7 report is incomplete. you scoff at how long it is taking yet in those same six years you have come up with nothing. no facts. just videos with sound embellishments. snippets of quotes taken out of context. sound bites, outright lies, deceptions, false claims, junk science. and the mentally ill paraded around as experts.
Who is the You that you are referring to? That's a bit vague, isn't it?

ref

28th August 2007, 02:18 AM

I can't believe I have missed this thread.

Markja, if you want to discuss these topics in Finnish, come to

http://www.tiede.fi/keskustelut/viewtopic.php?t=6387&start=7935

The thread already has 530 pages. That is, unless you already are a member there.

I am in process of translating my page to Finnish. You can go to

http://911opas.googlepages.com/wtc

and

http://911opas.googlepages.com/pentagon

to read about the events in Finnish.

If you want to see stuff in english, I'm sure you'll find plenty of links.

And Finnish Air Defences have nothing to do with US. There is no way you can compare those two. And one thing. The main air defence threat in the US before 9/11 was some Russian bomber coming overseas. In our country, Russia is across the border. Is it a surprise we are on alert for any air threat very fast? We have been attacked by Russia before (ok, some 60 years ago). How many times have US been attacked by their neighbours Canada or Mexico? Yet, they were on alert. They just didn't have enough time to catch the planes. We have discussed this here over and over. And do you think our air forces would shoot down passenger jets?

Täällä on muitakin suomalaisia. Ihmisiä ympäri maailman. Todella asiantuntevia ihmisiä, oikeita pilotteja, insinöörejä, oikeita ihmisiä jotka olivat päivän tapahtumissa mukana. Ihmisiä, jotka ovat paljastaneet suuren kasan totuusliikkeen valheita. Kuuntele heidän tarinoitaan ja mieti, onko salaliittoteoriassa mitään järkeä.

Norseman

28th August 2007, 05:23 AM

A W Smith

28th August 2007, 05:43 AM

Two words for you, TIMOTHY McVEIGH!Im sorry. What plane did McVeigh hijack again? Was NORAD involved? I don't remember fighter jets being scrambled to Oklahoma. Maybe can you refresh our memories? re-read my text you responded to.

Who is the You that you are referring to? That's a bit vague, isn't it?
the You is the supposed "truth" movement.

A W Smith

28th August 2007, 05:44 AM

double post

Belz...

28th August 2007, 05:58 AM

Someone gave me a hint about this forum related to 911 "conspiracy" bashing

Bashing ? This forum is about education.

1) The first thing that bothers me about 911 is that who actually gained from it? Lets be frankly here, Bush and hes friends did, and so did the US politicians too.

Did they ? I don't think they did.

They got popularity, money, power and where able to start cutting down civil rights and other things that any goverment finds "bad". They got Afganistan, now Iraq and maybe soon Iran...with their oil etc. etc.

Even were that true, it doesn't mean anything. I benefit from it too, since the US dollar keeps falling and that means I can import stuff for cheaper. Does that mean I'm in on it ?

OK, sure, US officials made mistakes, maybe they are just trying to hide them...right?

They're politicians. What ELSE would they do ?

3) The fact that US, being the only superpower in the world, was unable to get fighter up in the air to protect its capital, when under major surprise attack and imminent danger to capital...I recall it took over an hour to get the fighters there AFTER the WTC was hit and everyone knew there where multiple hijackings in progress.

Uh-huh. So ?

Orcourse there are "explanations" on "why" it happened to happen so. Well, here in tiny Finland, we got interceptors flying around Helsinkin BEFORE Pentagon was struck...

Evidence ?

come on, are you really buying the "US just cant protect the capital even in hour" explanation?!?

Sure. Since when is NORAD supposed to protect the US from internal attacks ?

4) About the WTC buildings. I know, try to hang on here. The fact that it was reported (I recall by NIST, might have been FEMA) that the best theory on what caused WTC7 to collapse had "very low propability of occurance".

And yet it happened. What's your point ?

So what Im saying is, that they try to make things sound like other what they really where. They are twisting words and playing word games. Why?

So far, you're following the truther M.O.: Start slow and build up to lunacy.

6) It is general idea, that US goverment and its officials or institutions would never lie, but the paranoid nuts always lie.

And HERE we go. Lunacy. When did ANYONE ever say that ?

If there are 2 different evidence on subject X, then the on that is from US goverment is concidered "trusted" while the other is concider "not trusted".

No, there is only 1 truth. Sorry.

Yes, I know, none of these really absolutely give PROOF that 911 was inside job. Sure. But... Id have zillion more questions to ask

None of which would be proof of anything because QUESTIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

stanleywinthrop

28th August 2007, 06:21 AM

Well, apparently not in Finland.
But if your air defence is really so terrible, that even in case of attack it takes over an hour to get fighter to protect your capital, well, lets just say that...maybe you should learn some Finnish air defence technics? How about it?

Markja, I have to admit you got us on this point. I mean 40 years of cold war should have taught us to realize that the real threat was the possibility of Russian Bombers taking off from Logan International, Newark International, and Dulles International. In fact I'm sure the Russian planners now have a plan to use those airfields as bases for their nuclear bomber fleet, and we would be powerless to defend against them.

Swing Dangler

28th August 2007, 06:36 AM

Sure. Since when is NORAD supposed to protect the US from internal attacks ?
When they are notified by the FAA that a hijacking has occurred. Their protocols are in the public domain if you would like to read exactly how such an event is to be handled.

VespaGuy

28th August 2007, 06:58 AM

Markja, could you please explain this point a little better:

4) About the WTC buildings. I know, try to hang on here. The fact that it was reported (I recall by NIST, might have been FEMA) that the best theory on what caused WTC7 to collapse had "very low propability of occurance".

This is one of your initial points. I'm assuming that since you led with it, that you feel it is one of your strongest.

Yet, later you say:

If 911 was somehow inside job, then its very likely that that raport is also inside job, so you cant trust it.

So which is it?

If the 'raport' is an inside job, why would they bother stating that the best theory had a very low probability of occurance? Why not just lie and say that it had a very high probability of occuring?

If instead you believe the experts in regard to the "very low probability" claim, why do you dismiss the rest of their findings?

I'd really like you to address this. Your conflicting claims are extremely illogical.

Belz...

28th August 2007, 08:10 AM

Lets see...how about some video footage from the plane that crashed Pentagon?

Yeah, I want a million dollars. Parking lot cameras don't tend to run at 100 frames a second.

This is EXACTLY the BS THEY are saying.

Who's "they" ?

Its pure BS.

Argument from incredulity.

Fighters can fly you know, they can go anywhere where the threat is coming from.

And do what ? Shoot down civilian airplanes when they don't even know what's happening ?

If its difficult to find aircraft with radar alone, tell me what would prevent Russia/CCCP from simply installing civilian transponders to their bombers and just fly around US airspace dropping bombs? No, it doesnt work like that.

You're right. It doesn't. They'd have to cross INTO the US, which is precisely that NORAD is supposed to prevent.

Bush wanted. He needed it. And now he even got to be president second time, that would have not happened if 911 hasnt happened.

Your point ?

Belz...

28th August 2007, 08:11 AM

When they are notified by the FAA that a hijacking has occurred. Their protocols are in the public domain if you would like to read exactly how such an event is to be handled.

We're talking about NORAD, here. When are they supposed to shoot down airliners ??

Pardalis

28th August 2007, 08:13 AM

Two words for you, TIMOTHY McVEIGH!

Isn't that three words? :confused:

Belz...

28th August 2007, 08:15 AM

BS. You asked me to give source and then told that its not going to be good enought anyway, because its from "conspiracy site" anyway.

Pot and kettle, Mark:

If 911 was somehow inside job, then its very likely that that raport is also inside job, so you cant trust it.

See ?

So they look 360 degrees, but only outward. So they only look 180 degrees then right? Right?

Er... no. The outside of a circle is still 360 degrees.

ROTFLOL!

What are you ? 9 ?

But you dont have to prove it was done by Bin Laden?

Who said anything about Bin Laden ? 19 Terrorists boarded the planes, we know this.

Calm and patient? Asking me to give a source and then say that the source is anyway some "conspiracy site so its no good"? LOL!

Disagreeing with you is not being impatient. It's unfortunate that you think everyone should take you on your word.

twinstead

28th August 2007, 08:15 AM

I'd like to see any pre-911 protocol that specifies that NORAD is to shoot down a civilian airliner that has been reported hijacked

CurtC

28th August 2007, 08:19 AM

The people answering to this topic mostly have prettymuch zero information about 911, since I have to explain even the basic details to them (starting from yes, you have radars, ever heard of them...We're talking about NORAD here, and their job on 9/11 was a hangover from the cold war, looking for bombers coming from across the ocean.

... & yes, there are security cams in Pentagon, surprising, etc.).Inside the Pentagon? Those won't do much good, will they? Do you have any evidence that there were any cameras that would have captured images of the plane when it was outside the Petagon, coming at it? Again, this would be a major news event if you have evidence for that.

Sabrina

28th August 2007, 08:36 AM

kookbreaker

28th August 2007, 08:37 AM

The Pentagon only uses a small number of cameras, they are much more partial to live security for their needs. The outside cameras are basicly designed to protect the cars in the parking lot, not much else.

Pardalis

28th August 2007, 08:38 AM

The Pentagon has surprisingly few cameras for being such a big building. Maybe they added more since 9/11; I don't know. However, I could ask someone who's been there or works there and was there before 9/11 to see if they recall seeing hundreds of security cameras. I'll bet they say no.

I found this statement from an FBI agent:

http://www.flight77.info/dec1/mcquredec05.jpg
http://www.flight77.info/dec1/mcquredec06.jpg

85 tapes, almost all of them didn't even show anything relevant.

Belz...

28th August 2007, 10:05 AM

Please learn to use the quote function. You're lucky I noticed that was ME saying that.

When they are notified by the FAA that a hijacking has occurred.

They SHOOT down civilian airplanes ?

Stellafane

28th August 2007, 10:46 AM

Is anyone else having a "Groundhog Day" moment about now?

I swear, there's gotta be some handbook somewhere, it's so rote and predictable:

Step 1. Write a polite OP pretending you're a skeptic with a few innocent-sounding questions you'd like clarified.

Step 2. Dismiss all responses to your questions, however thorough and well-reasoned, and keep arguring your points without any evidence to back them up.

Step 3. Get angry when people start catching onto your shtick (cusswords optional).

Step 4. Announce that we're all a bunch of close-minded sheeple and make what is in your mind a grand exit.

It's like dealing with the exact same person over and over again, isn't it?

Corsair 115

28th August 2007, 10:51 AM

Why do you think most of the planes where in Canada and Alaska on 911? Just coincidence? Did you ever hear of the Cold War? This is a serious question; I ask because I expect most folks who are 20-25 or younger probably cannot conceive of just how big a deal the Cold War was.

Air defence of North America was predicated on the Cold War, and that involved attack by Soviet nuclear bombers penetrating into North American airspace from outside it as part of WWIII.

Though tensions eased significantly after 1990 with the collapse of the Soviet Union, air defence still retained its Cold War heritage.

dudalb

28th August 2007, 10:52 AM

Yeah,these "Stealth" Truthers can't keep their cover for very long.
BTW,Robert Fisk a Middle East "Expert Journalists" is now doing the whole 'Questions about 9/11 " routine and I am making book as to how long until he is up on the platform on a "Truth" meeting.

Unsecured Coins

28th August 2007, 10:54 AM

Markja, if you want to discuss these topics in Finnish... <snip>

Finnish? but we just started!!!

OldSchool

28th August 2007, 11:21 AM

First a small intro :). Im from Finland and english isnt my native language, so please excuse me for poor spelling etc. I bet its better than your Finnish anyway so...

Someone gave me a hint about this forum related to 911 "conspiracy" bashing so I thought that maybe you could bash few things and theories that I have about 911. I have read manymanymany books about the subject (yes, Griffin, NIST, Zwicker, Popular Mechanics, etc.) and watched prettymuch every "documentary" about 911 I have been able to find. Most of the documentaries have been simply funny, but some of them have had few good points. So I do know about stuff (atleast thats what I think). Im a member of Skepsis ry here in Finland and Im pretty damm sceptic about all kinds of stuff and, well, know stuff about that issue too.

1) The first thing that bothers me about 911 is that who actually gained from it? Lets be frankly here, Bush and hes friends did, and so did the US politicians too. They got popularity, money, power and where able to start cutting down civil rights and other things that any goverment finds "bad". They got Afganistan, now Iraq and maybe soon Iran...with their oil etc. etc.

2) The second thing that really bothers me is the cover-up mentality combined with "multiple one-in-a-million-shot-change-errors" (and nobody has been fired because of them). OK, sure, US officials made mistakes, maybe they are just trying to hide them...right?

3) The fact that US, being the only superpower in the world, was unable to get fighter up in the air to protect its capital, when under major surprise attack and imminent danger to capital...I recall it took over an hour to get the fighters there AFTER the WTC was hit and everyone knew there where multiple hijackings in progress. Orcourse there are "explanations" on "why" it happened to happen so. Well, here in tiny Finland, we got interceptors flying around Helsinkin BEFORE Pentagon was struck...come on, are you really buying the "US just cant protect the capital even in hour" explanation?!?

4) About the WTC buildings. I know, try to hang on here. The fact that it was reported (I recall by NIST, might have been FEMA) that the best theory on what caused WTC7 to collapse had "very low propability of occurance".

5) The general talk and twisting of words and playing with words that is surrounding the official documents and talk. For example, I recall it was on Popular Mechanics "Debunking 911 Myths", where they used language like:"In 1000 degrees Celsius, steel looses 90% of its strenght & hydrocarbon fires can rage up to 1200 degrees Celsius & there was hydrocarbon fire on WTC." I mean, all these are true, yes, but they are TOTALLY out of context. The fact was, that highest temperature measured in which any of the support colums had been was something like 500C and most of them didnt heat up over 200C & fires where not optimal hydrocarbon fires so they burned something like 600-800C at most. So what Im saying is, that they try to make things sound like other what they really where. They are twisting words and playing word games. Why?

6) It is general idea, that US goverment and its officials or institutions would never lie, but the paranoid nuts always lie. If there are 2 different evidence on subject X, then the on that is from US goverment is concidered "trusted" while the other is concider "not trusted".

Yes, I know, none of these really absolutely give PROOF that 911 was inside job. Sure. But... Id have zillion more questions to ask, but Id be very happy if you could point out some errors in my information and/or logics so far...

1. You're exactly right select politicians did gain. There was enough popular support available to start a war. The Oil isn't really as big as you might think though. Historicaly War is the greatest thing for an Economy. This was was no different. The ammount of government contracts available, for an endless variety of products, during a time of war is staggering. Republicans have claimed, from an economic standpoint, 8 years of success under the Bush administration.

2. Classified information under this administration reached record highs every year concurrently, until the administration wouldn't disclose how much was being classified anymore. Excutive privleadge has become another issue under the Bush administration which borders upon Dictatorial powers.

3. There were training missions being conducted on the day of 911 by Vice President "neocon" Dick Cheney. Was the largest training mission in NORAD's history. The resources weren't available and there was quite a bit of confusion as a result of these training missions.

4. The NIST report is just as much of a Conspiracy theory as any floating around out there. Read what James Quintiere has had to say on the subject.

5. People tend to easily fall victim to large lies rather than to small ones.

6. Propaganda is a very powerful tool which has been successful to a curtain degree during post 911. I have found the level of trust given to our government on this websight is far above average though. The propaganda was very subtle. There wasn't any investigative reporting done by major networks. People were given one cause "Al quaeda".

From an outside perspective the points and questions you've asked have quite a foundation of logic supported by facts.

dudalb

28th August 2007, 11:25 AM

So say Mr."THe CIA Stole My Homework!":jaw-dropp

Alferd_Packer

28th August 2007, 11:29 AM

Markja, if you want to discuss these topics in Finnish . . .

Well, you could switch to Estonian, I'm sure ChrisB, er, I mean, Markja would appreciate that.

Pardalis

28th August 2007, 11:38 AM

2. Classified information under this administration reached record highs every year concurrently,

snip

3. There were training missions being conducted on the day of 911 by Vice President "neocon" Dick Cheney. Was the largest training mission in NORAD's history.

Do you have any evidence to support these claims? Thanks.

Corsair 115

28th August 2007, 01:03 PM

The ammount of government contracts available, for an endless variety of products, during a time of war is staggering. Then you should have no problem digging up the specific and relevant spending done in the last six years by the U.S. government to demonstrate your assertion. Be sure, however, to provide those figures in both dollar amounts, percentage of the budget, and percentage of GDP. Cite historical values also so the numbers you provide can be put into proper context.

If you cannot provide specific numbers and examples, then you should revise your statement to indicate it's only your opinion and not fact.

The NIST report is just as much of a Conspiracy theory as any floating around out there. Read what James Quintiere has had to say on the subject. Indeed, read what Mr. Quintiere has to say. When one does, one notes that he says NO pre-planted explosives or any similar was responsible for bringing down the WTC towers. In other words, he does NOT believe in any conspiracy.

This would seem to work against you citing him as proof of your conspiracy theory.

People tend to easily fall victim to large lies rather than to small ones. As Bart Simpson once observed, "The ironing is delicious."

Propaganda is a very powerful tool which has been successful to a curtain degree during post 911. I have found the level of trust given to our government on this websight is far above average though. Tasks for you to complete to make your statement above more credible:

1) Define "government" as you mean it. Are NASA, NOAA, USGS, EIA, and the Census Bureau, just to name five government agencies, part of "government" as you mean it?

2) Define "trust."

3) Cite some sort of empirical proof that your statement of "the level of trust given to our government on this websight is far above average though." If you cannot then you should revise your statement to make it clear it's only your opinion and not fact.

4) Define the importance and role played by the media of other nations in terms of this propaganda you claim exists.

Belz...

28th August 2007, 01:12 PM

I swear, there's gotta be some handbook somewhere, it's so rote and predictable:

Step 1. Write a polite OP pretending you're a skeptic with a few innocent-sounding questions you'd like clarified.

Step 2. Dismiss all responses to your questions, however thorough and well-reasoned, and keep arguring your points without any evidence to back them up.

Step 3. Get angry when people start catching onto your shtick (cusswords optional).

Step 4. Announce that we're all a bunch of close-minded sheeple and make what is in your mind a grand exit.

Step four can also be suicide by mod.

Drudgewire

28th August 2007, 01:13 PM

Finnish? but we just started!!!
http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/downsrim.gif

Belz...

28th August 2007, 01:16 PM

1. You're exactly right select politicians did gain. There was enough popular support available to start a war. The Oil isn't really as big as you might think though. Historicaly War is the greatest thing for an Economy. This was was no different.

Do you have any evidence of this or did you just make it up ? Did you miss the time when I told you that war -> debt ?

2. Classified information under this administration reached record highs every year concurrently

How would you know this ?

3. There were training missions being conducted on the day of 911 by Vice President "neocon" Dick Cheney. Was the largest training mission in NORAD's history. The resources weren't available and there was quite a bit of confusion as a result of these training missions.

Evidence ?

4. The NIST report is just as much of a Conspiracy theory as any floating around out there. Read what James Quintiere has had to say on the subject.

NIST isn't about the hijackers, but about the mechanics leading up to the collapse. Please keep up.

5. People tend to easily fall victim to large lies rather than to small ones.

Stop preaching.

6. Propaganda is a very powerful tool which has been successful to a curtain degree during post 911.

Although my opinions on 9/11 are not based on propaganda. You fail.

I have found the level of trust given to our government on this websight is far above average though.

Not in Canada, anyway.

The propaganda was very subtle. There wasn't any investigative reporting done by major networks. People were given one cause "Al quaeda".

And... ? Do you have any reason to believe it is false, except your own bias ?

SpaceMonkeyZero

28th August 2007, 01:23 PM

Markja seems to be suffering from Hindsight 20/20itis

Undesired Walrus

28th August 2007, 01:27 PM

When seeing the title, am I the only one to think....

http://coolpark.free.fr/South%20Park/Fonds/terrence_et_Philip02.jpg

'This is aboot freedom! This is aboot justice! This is aboot!'

Architect

28th August 2007, 01:29 PM

I fear that our little friend also forgets that most of us come from outwith the US.

sts60

28th August 2007, 01:40 PM

funk de fino

28th August 2007, 01:52 PM

1. Republicans have claimed, from an economic standpoint, 8 years of success under the Bush administration

Have you seen your economy, its pathetic, I get $2 for every pound I earn, first time I came to NY (July 2001) I got $1.33 for every pound

3. There were training missions being conducted on the day of 911 by Vice President "neocon" Dick Cheney. Was the largest training mission in NORAD's history. The resources weren't available and there was quite a bit of confusion as a result of these training missions.

This is a big lie

5. People tend to easily fall victim to large lies rather than to small ones.

And some people fall for more stupid lies than others

6. Propaganda is a very powerful tool which has been successful to a curtain degree during post 911. I have found the level of trust given to our government on this websight is far above average though. The propaganda was very subtle. There wasn't any investigative reporting done by major networks. People were given one cause "Al quaeda".

Please stop using curtain instead of certain, it makes you look indcredibly stupid

From an outside perspective the points and questions you've asked have quite a foundation of logic supported by facts.

Outside what, the realms of the real world?

SpaceMonkeyZero

28th August 2007, 01:57 PM

Have you seen your economy, its pathetic, I get $2 for every pound I earn, first time I came to NY (July 2001) I got $1.33 for every pound

Not to get into the fluctuations of money... But this isn't the be-all-end-all of figuring out how good an economy is. There are good things about an under valued currency (more foreign investment, more tourism dollars coming in, labor becomes cheaper and goods made here become cheaper abroad... increasing their sales)... and there are good things about an over valued currency (Lots of money to invest where it's cheaper, more vacations to new lands with undervalued currency, goods made by cheaper labor are even cheaper now) etc.

It's a pet peeve of mine for people to think that currency going down is inherently a bad thing.

Brainster

28th August 2007, 02:22 PM

Not to get into the fluctuations of money... But this isn't the be-all-end-all of figuring out how good an economy is. There are good things about an under valued currency (more foreign investment, more tourism dollars coming in, labor becomes cheaper and goods made here become cheaper abroad... increasing their sales)... and there are good things about an over valued currency (Lots of money to invest where it's cheaper, more vacations to new lands with undervalued currency, goods made by cheaper labor are even cheaper now) etc.

It's a pet peeve of mine for people to think that currency going down is inherently a bad thing.

Good point. And the dollar has oscillated within a fairly narrow range compared to the pound for many years. I remember when I went to England in the 1970s the exchange rate started out at $2.11/pound and declined to $1.55/pound during the three months I was there, and this was during 1976, not exactly a banner year for the US economy.

pomeroo

28th August 2007, 02:44 PM

1. You're exactly right select politicians did gain. There was enough popular support available to start a war. The Oil isn't really as big as you might think though. Historicaly War is the greatest thing for an Economy. This was was no different. The ammount of government contracts available, for an endless variety of products, during a time of war is staggering. Republicans have claimed, from an economic standpoint, 8 years of success under the Bush administration.

You're not the least bit troubled by the fact that Bush has not been in office for eight years, are you? Republicans were not claiming much success for an economy that entered a recession at the end of Clinton's term and was worsened by the jihadist attacks of 9/11.

funk de fino

28th August 2007, 02:55 PM

Not to get into the fluctuations of money... But this isn't the be-all-end-all of figuring out how good an economy is. There are good things about an under valued currency (more foreign investment, more tourism dollars coming in, labor becomes cheaper and goods made here become cheaper abroad... increasing their sales)... and there are good things about an over valued currency (Lots of money to invest where it's cheaper, more vacations to new lands with undervalued currency, goods made by cheaper labor are even cheaper now) etc.

It's a pet peeve of mine for people to think that currency going down is inherently a bad thing.

The US economy is not exactly booming at the moment is it? Currency is not the be all and end all I agree but we have had a very stable and good economy for years now which helps to strengthen the £ against the $, it was the simplest point I thought the guy would understand

I will refrain from poking your peeve again:D

funk de fino

28th August 2007, 02:57 PM

Good point. And the dollar has oscillated within a fairly narrow range compared to the pound for many years. I remember when I went to England in the 1970s the exchange rate started out at $2.11/pound and declined to $1.55/pound during the three months I was there, and this was during 1976, not exactly a banner year for the US economy.

It was a bigger stinker for the UK that year though

Interest rates rose to 15%, PM resigned, large loans from the IMF

Only good thing was the record summer weather, I remember it like yesterday

The Pig

28th August 2007, 03:01 PM

Who gained the most? The muslim terrorist if the reward is as advertised.

Viper Daimao

28th August 2007, 03:16 PM

The US economy is not exactly booming at the moment is it? Currency is not the be all and end all I agree but we have had a very stable and good economy for years now which helps to strengthen the £ against the $, it was the simplest point I thought the guy would understand

I will refrain from poking your peeve again:D

Well I seem to remember the dow jones hitting record highs before the subprime mortgage slowdown a few weeks ago. Plus Unemployment is at an historical low 4.6% or something, and has been for over a year.

Drudgewire

28th August 2007, 03:20 PM

Yeah, our economy is pretty good right now. Of course it took us almost until 2005 to get there, which is quite a lag for the "go to war to get rich" theory.

firecoins

29th August 2007, 04:12 PM

Aaaah! So all what the Soviets would have had to do is to put on civilian transponders and just fly all their bombers to the Washington, and they wouldnt have been shot down? RIGHT. ROTFLOL! Look, they shoot down anything you point them to and fire. Its that simple.

They had phone bridges established.

Well, maybe that would a thing to wonder AFTER the jets would have even been SENT in the general area where they where needed?!?

Strawman.
Soviet bomber still look like soviet bombers. They do not take off from domestic airports with AMERICAN written on the side. American fighters do not shoot down civilian jets with civilian on them.

FAA sent NORAD wrong info. Norad can not shoot down civilian jetliners without order from the Presidnet and no such phone bridges existed. Sorry! Proven with facts.

PhantomWolf

29th August 2007, 07:46 PM

wow, from I have a few questions to full blown truther is 1 post, that must almost be a record.

I fear that our little friend also forgets that most of us come from outwith the US.

Actually according to the poll, it's a 50/50 split.

PhantomWolf

29th August 2007, 07:56 PM

Aaaah! So all what the Soviets would have had to do is to put on civilian transponders and just fly all their bombers to the Washington, and they wouldnt have been shot down?

Being from Finland, I an sure you are familiar with the story of Mathias Rust. If not, here's the Wikipedia entry on him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust). I guess all the US had to do to attack the USSR was put their bombs on a Cessena and land them in Red Square right? Or perhaps their air defences were stood down since they kept losing him. And this a plane coming from outside Soviet Airspace during the cold war times, not an internal flight during peace times.

CJOKUSAP

3rd September 2007, 11:49 AM

Isn't that three words? :confused:

I can see how this whole 9/11 thing has got you confused if you can't understand a simple thing like a persons name! Was HIS SECOND NAME McVEIGH, or VEIGH? Are you implying "Mc" was his middle name?

My point in mentioning him, was that saying the U.S. only considered threats from beyond it's shores, is disingenuous, to say the least.

funk de fino

3rd September 2007, 12:07 PM

I can see how this whole 9/11 thing has got you confused if you can't understand a simple thing like a persons name! Was HIS SECOND NAME McVEIGH, or VEIGH? Are you implying "Mc" was his middle name?

My point in mentioning him, was that saying the U.S. only considered threats from beyond it's shores, is disingenuous, to say the least.

its a good job no-one said that then

twisting the night away

defaultdotxbe

3rd September 2007, 12:15 PM

I can see how this whole 9/11 thing has got you confused if you can't understand a simple thing like a persons name! Was HIS SECOND NAME McVEIGH, or VEIGH? Are you implying "Mc" was his middle name?

My point in mentioning him, was that saying the U.S. only considered threats from beyond it's shores, is disingenuous, to say the least.
i dont think the FAA, NEADS and NORAD were concerned much with mcveigh, it was the FBIs jurisdiction, and up until 9/11, so were hijackings

Corsair 115

3rd September 2007, 12:24 PM

My point in mentioning him, was that saying the U.S. only considered threats from beyond it's shores, is disingenuous, to say the least.Not in terms of air defence it isn't. Defence of American airspace was still predicated upon Cold War thinking prior to 9/11.

Pardalis

3rd September 2007, 01:23 PM

twisting the night away

That would make a great song title.

deep

11th September 2007, 02:03 AM

Don't trust the "official version" if you choose, but to not trust the fact "their side" can not pull in a single bonafide expert, deliver a single tanglible piece of factual evidence, or so much as get through a single paragraph (...)

The OP is probably reading this and thinking, "wait a minute, you're telling me there are precisely zero experts who think the official story is a complete lie? That can't be true, because I've already found dozens of them in the short time I've been researching 9/11."

To the OP: You probably don't understand what it takes to maintain "expert" status around here. You see, once an expert publishes an opinion that disagrees with the US Government's version of events with regard to 9/11, that "expert" immediately ceases to be an "expert".

In reality, you're right - there are plenty of experts who believe the official story is a big lie. Unfortunately, as you can see from the post I've quoted above, the posters in this forum cannot be trusted as a credible source of information. I would highly recommend doing your own research, and forming your own conclusions.

A word of warning, though: the "truth movement" can be just as bad as the people who hang around here. Keep that in mind as you sift through everything.

If you concentrate on the empirical data, and not the interpretation of that data, you'll eventually have enough to form your own opinion about what happened. Good luck.