No Witnesses to Planes Hitting the WTC

[pomeroo]

After a year of experiencing the 9/11 fantasy movement in its various guises, I still retain my initial amazement at the lengths to which some people will go to create an alternate reality. Here is a determined, if deranged, attempt to show that nobody actually saw planes hit the Towers:

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=134&Itemid=60


Please note that he seriously (?) contends that there were 117 people close enough to be witnesses. What could persuade such a person that there were thousands?

[The Doc]

After a year of experiencing the 9/11 fantasy movement in its various guises, I still retain my initial amazement at the lengths to which some people will go to create an alternate reality. Here is a determined, if deranged, attempt to show that nobody actually saw planes hit the Towers:

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=134&Itemid=60


Please note that he seriously (?) contends that there were 117 people close enough to be witnesses. What could persuade such a person that there were thousands?

This guy can't be serious...?! There were 50,000 people in the buildings themselves. Not everyone who saw the plane can be interviewed on television for Christ's sake.

The odd thing, though, is that the Pentagon no-planers will also dismiss this guy as crazy, without seeing the irony.

[Quad4_72]

After a year of experiencing the 9/11 fantasy movement in its various guises, I still retain my initial amazement at the lengths to which some people will go to create an alternate reality. Here is a determined, if deranged, attempt to show that nobody actually saw planes hit the Towers:

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=134&Itemid=60


Please note that he seriously (?) contends that there were 117 people close enough to be witnesses. What could persuade such a person that there were thousands?

How is a person raised up in such a way that all critical thinking and logic are just thrown out the door? Is it for attention purposes?

[OldTigerCub]

After a year of experiencing the 9/11 fantasy movement in its various guises, I still retain my initial amazement at the lengths to which some people will go to create an alternate reality. Here is a determined, if deranged, attempt to show that nobody actually saw planes hit the Towers:

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=134&Itemid=60


Please note that he seriously (?) contends that there were 117 people close enough to be witnesses. What could persuade such a person that there were thousands?

Sheesh....This one seems to be really out there. From this quote in his publication where he cites being enlightened by Dr. Wood, it's apparent that he's a "space beamer":

For quite some time, I was convinced that the mechanism of the destruction of WTC 1 & 2 had to be similar to controlled demolition – it was the only thing that could account for the near free-fall time of “collapse”. However, I have since been enlightened through the results of Dr Wood’s study – the overall evidence does not support the idea that controlled demolition was the primary method of destruction of the towers. In examining the witness accounts, I found quite a few where the collapse was described as possibly like the sound of an approaching plane or rocket. For example, from the account of Faisel Abed (File No: 9110071):
You just heard this thrushing, thrushing noise like a rocket. I thought the building was under attack again. You just start seeing this smoke coming down. We just took off. We went north. We actually -- sorry, we went west. We went towards the river. All right. Then we just went towards the river and went up north a little bit behind the building. That was after the first one went down.
He describes a continuous noise rather than lots of explosions going off. Let us not confuse this part of the account with those accounts of earlier explosions before the towers came down, rather than as they were coming down. The repeated sequence of timed explosions heard during a controlled demolition is very distinctive and none of the witness accounts I studied described hearing this sort of sound as the towers collapsed.

After reading that, I need a beer....no make that 6 or 7 beers....:alc:

[Alareth]

Ace has relatives across the pond?

[pomeroo]

Ace has relatives across the pond?


Ace has relatives in the pond.

[quixotecoyote]

Ace has relatives in the pond.

He made it out?

[buka001]

Do any websites carry a decent list of witness accounts to the impacts on WTC.

HAd a troofer arguing that not a single person saw a plane hit the building.

[tacodaemon]

How is a person raised up in such a way that all critical thinking and logic are just thrown out the door? Is it for attention purposes?


At a couple of points in that essay I thought this guy was getting pretty close to the conclusion that the WTC never existed in the first place.

[tacodaemon]

After reading that, I need a beer....no make that 6 or 7 beers....:alc:


For debunkers, the lack of any sound of demolition charges going off is a pretty clear sign that the collapses happened naturally as the structure failed. For this guy, the lack of any sound of demolition charges going off is a pretty clear sign that laser guns from outer space did it.

[Plantfoam]

I'm pretty sure that termites brought the buildings down. No, I didn't misspell thermite.

[MikeW]

Some Flight 11 witnesses here (http://911myths.com/index.php/American_Airlines_Flight_11_Crash_Evidence)

Some Flight 175 witnesses here (http://911myths.com/index.php/United_Airlines_Flight_175_Crash_Evidence)

They're mostly people who saw the planes, though I've also included one or two accounts from people who only heard something.

[Magenta]

After a year of experiencing the 9/11 fantasy movement in its various guises, I still retain my initial amazement at the lengths to which some people will go to create an alternate reality. Here is a determined, if deranged, attempt to show that nobody actually saw planes hit the Towers:

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=134&Itemid=60


Please note that he seriously (?) contends that there were 117 people close enough to be witnesses. What could persuade such a person that there were thousands?


He's restricted himself to the accounts of the first responders, not all of whom were in a position to see the planes hit. He breezily dismisses the video evidence:

Overall, I conclude the descriptions of planes given by the witnesses do not give one any more confidence than the video material, such as that presented in the September Clues series, that large planes hit the towers. With something as unique as 9/11, it was easy to “sell” people the plane stories in the midst of such a terrible tragedy.


What a muppet.

[peteweaver]

I've known the niece of an eyewitness since 1981/ 82... Known her since I was 3.

Her uncle (Paul Berriff) saw flight 175 crash into WTC2 with his own eyes. He was injured in the attack. He's also a film maker, though I doubt that truther's would be interested in his factual documentary about the firefighters, which does not promote conspiracy theories, but simply tells their story...

[pomeroo]

I've known the niece of an eyewitness since 1981/ 82... Known her since I was 3.

Her uncle (Paul Berriff) saw flight 175 crash into WTC2 with his own eyes. He was injured in the attack. He's also a film maker, though I doubt that truther's would be interested in his factual documentary about the firefighters, which does not promote conspiracy theories, but simply tells their story...


See Morgan Reynolds's challenge to JREFers in the thread "Morgan Reynolds Responds to Greening." This no-plane nonsense is his baby.

[apacherose105]

Misinformation agents..... 99.99% of people who question the official story will tell you that this is misinformation also. This should be a no brainer.

[BenBurch]

... He's also a film maker, though I doubt that truther's would be interested in his factual documentary about the firefighters, which does not promote conspiracy theories, but simply tells their story...

Pete? What is the name of this film? I would love to see it. Thanks!

[Bell]

Pete? What is the name of this film? I would love to see it. Thanks!

I did a quick search on Google:

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,762573,00.html

Wow...

[WilliamSeger]

There were no witnesses, because all the witnesses who saw the plane are lying.

There is no evidence of a plane at all, because all that evidence was faked.

This would be simple to prove except all the real evidence has been covered-up, and why would there be a cover-up if there wasn't a conspiracy?

Q.E.D.

[T.A.M.]

There were no witnesses, because all the witnesses who saw the plane are lying.

There is no evidence of a plane at all, because all that evidence was faked.

This would be simple to prove except all the real evidence has been covered-up, and why would there be a cover-up if there wasn't a conspiracy?

Q.E.D.

I originally had 4 headbanging icons here, then when I realized who posted, I realized the sarcasm...lol

TAM:)

[uk_dave]

You just heard this thrushing, thrushing noise like a rocket. I thought the building was under attack again. You just start seeing this smoke coming down. We just took off. We went north. We actually -- sorry, we went west. We went towards the river. All right. Then we just went towards the river and went up north a little bit behind the building. That was after the first one went down.

It was a yeast infection? Case solved.

[BigAl]

Do any websites carry a decent list of witness accounts to the impacts on WTC.


This book has lots of stories of people in the buildings.
102 Minutes by Dwyer & Flynn

[nicepants]

This guy can't be serious...?! There were 50,000 people in the buildings themselves. Not everyone who saw the plane can be interviewed on television for Christ's sake.

The odd thing, though, is that the Pentagon no-planers will also dismiss this guy as crazy, without seeing the irony.

Dylan got particularly upset when Killtown relayed that sentiment during an on-air debate.

It was funny to hear one CTer telling another CTer that he's "got to back his statements up with fact". I got 2000% of my Recommended Daily Irony during that show.

[MIKILLINI]

I think that if you took those who believe there were no planes and those who believe the planes were remote-controlled and put them in the same room, both sides wouldn't come to any logical realization, except, maybe, each respective side would believe they are more right than the other.

[firecoins]

I know people who saw at least one of the two planes hit the towers.

Some of the videotape of 175 hitting was that of normal people with videocameras.

Tens of thousands of people saw the plane in person. They are all in on it.

[MIKILLINI]

I know people who saw at least one of the two planes hit the towers.

Some of the videotape of 175 hitting was that of normal people with videocameras.

Tens of thousands of people saw the plane in person. They are all in on it.

Which means they are all guilty, as charged, of witnessing an actual event.

[Truther logic] Isn't there a law against that? [truther logic]

[apacherose105]

I'm a truther. I don't know anyone else that believes this no-plane *l****. I think it's misinformation.

[Arus808]

I'm a truther. I don't know anyone else that believes this no-plane ********. I think it's misinformation.

Unfortunately, it is not misinformation. it is the belief of several of your respected members of the 911 denial movement.

[uk_dave]

I'm a truther. I don't know anyone else that believes this no-plane ********. I think it's misinformation.

Welcome to the forum.

Why must it be mis(dis?)information? Can't some people in the 'truth' movement be mentally unwell?

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

I'm a truther. I don't know anyone else that believes this no-plane *****. I think it's misinformation.

So does that mean you believe in remote controlled planes?

Or that the "hijackers" were US Black Ops on a suicide mission?

Or that rather than just shred evidence of knowing about the plot months before 9/11, perform a CD of WTC 7, where this evidence just so happened to be kept?

Which is it?

Let me guess what you will say: "I don't know, but I sure don't believe the OCT"

:boggled:

[Gravy]

I'm a truther. I don't know anyone else that believes this no-plane *****. I think it's misinformation.Welcome to the forums, apacherose.

Don't forget that, as mentioned above, there are many truthers (although their numbers seem to be dwindling) who don't think a plane hit the Pentagon or crashed in Pennsylvania. They are every bit as kooky as the WTC no-planers.

Please cut out the "misinformation" paranoia, and face the fact that some people are just stupid or cruel or delusional or all of the above.

[CHF]

I'm a truther. I don't know anyone else that believes this no-plane *****. I think it's misinformation.

Judy Wood, Uncle Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds and Killtown were all respected members of your movement at one time or another.

So what's the lesson here? Don't team up with lunatics and then act surprised when they say loony things. :D

[pomeroo]

Welcome to the forums, apacherose.

Don't forget that, as mentioned above, there are many truthers (although their numbers seem to be dwindling) who don't think a plane hit the Pentagon or crashed in Pennsylvania. They are every bit as kooky as the WTC no-planers.

Please cut out the "misinformation" paranoia, and face the fact that some people are just stupid or cruel or delusional or all of the above.


Deleted

[pomeroo]

I'm a truther. I don't know anyone else that believes this no-plane *****. I think it's misinformation.



No, what you are has nothing to do with truth. You are a fantasist, and you inhabit a realm outside reason and logic. Please try to understand, however, that there are no "disinfo agents." It's just loons disagreeing with other loons.

[The Pig]

A number of witnesses reported that they didn’t realize that the second impact was that of a plane – many of them “found out later”. This is in direct contradiction to those who reported to seeing plane parts, engine parts and landing gear.I don't see the contadiction here - some see something, others don't.

[dudalb]

No, what you are has nothing to do with truth. You are a fantasist, and you inhabit a realm outside reason and logic. Please try to understand, however, that there are no "disinfo agents." It's just loons disagreeing with other loons.

If every Truther spouting kooky ideas is a Government disinfo agent,then about 90% of the Truth Movement are working For the Government.

[Marquis de Carabas]

If every Truther spouting kooky ideas is a Government disinfo agent,then about 90% of the Truth Movement are working For the Government.
And now you finally understand exactly how deep this conspiracy goes. By my count, it involves 6,626,284,768 people.

[DavidJames]

And now you finally understand exactly how deep this conspiracy goes. By my count, it involves 6,626,284,768 people.Are you counting apacherose105, clearly, coming here trying to discredit parts of the CT movement proves they are also disinofo.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Are you counting apacherose105, clearly, coming here trying to discredit parts of the CT movement proves they are also disinofo.
I am counting every human being except myself.

It really hurts being left out, btw. :(

[Mangoose]

Anyone notice that the site has a response to this thread?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95998

pomeroo After a year of experiencing the 9/11 fantasy movement in its various guises, I still retain my initial amazement at the lengths to which some people will go to create an alternate reality. Here is a determined, if deranged, attempt to show that nobody actually saw planes hit the Towers:

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cm...=134&Itemid=60

Please note that he seriously (?) contends that there were 117 people close enough to be witnesses. What could persuade such a person that there were thousands?

Is this study above really "deranged"? The anonymous (as usual) person making this post takes the figure out of context and does not explain how the figure was determined. Nor does he discuss the quoted witness sample size of 291. A "deranged MS-Access Query"? Hmmm

Quad4_72 : How is a person raised up in such a way that all critical thinking and logic are just thrown out the door? Is it for attention purposes?

Never mind how I was raised (a little about which can be found if you poke round here) - what about the actual evidence? Critical thinking? Shouldn't it be based on criticising the evidence?

buka001 : Do any websites carry a decent list of witness accounts to the impacts on WTC.

HAd a troofer arguing that not a single person saw a plane hit the building.

This friendly critical thinker clearly didn't reach the table at the bottom, which contains a link to the report - which contains a table of witness account portions in the appendix - and a link to a zip file with all the accounts. If you want to find the truth, you actually have to work to dig it out, not just expect someone else to summarise it for you.

I hope that Mr James Randi is proud of the quality of friendly critical thinkers his forum attracts. For me, it's very educational - I hope that it is educational for others too!

[Drudgewire]

Is this study above really "deranged"? The anonymous (as usual) person making this post takes the figure out of context and does not explain how the figure was determined. Nor does he discuss the quoted witness sample size of 291. A "deranged MS-Access Query"? Hmmm

lol the anonymous Pomeroo. Good thing nobody knows who he is or that he puts his real name in his profile. :p

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I am counting every human being except myself.

It really hurts being left out, btw. :(
<Nelson>
HA HA!
</Nelson>

*sigh*
Apparently, we are once again getting mired in the details and not addressing the meta-argument.

Even if, for arguments sake, no person witnessed the plane(s) impact the tower(s), that itself is not evidence that the planes did not hit the towers. Only someone seeing the plane miss the tower would be evidence of this.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

If every Truther spouting kooky ideas is a Government disinfo agent,then about 90% of the Truth Movement are working For the Government.

90%? That low?

If that was the case, I'd say it's 99.9999% NWO infiltrated... With that one sucker spreading the "truth" for free.

[dudalb]

90%? That low?

If that was the case, I'd say it's 99.9999% NWO infiltrated... With that one sucker spreading the "truth" for free.
The 90% is taken into account that about 10% are LIHOPers who I consider to be paranoid and misinformed but not quite kooks,or people who don't really believe the Truther garbage but hate Bush so much they are willing to spread it in the belief that any garbage you throw is liable to stick.

[pomeroo]

lol the anonymous Pomeroo. Good thing nobody knows who he is or that he puts his real name in his profile. :p



Shhhh! I don't want anyone to know it's me! To preserve my anonymity, I've even put myself on ignore.

[apacherose105]

So does that mean you believe in remote controlled planes?

Or that the "hijackers" were US Black Ops on a suicide mission?

Or that rather than just shred evidence of knowing about the plot months before 9/11, perform a CD of WTC 7, where this evidence just so happened to be kept?

Which is it?

Let me guess what you will say: "I don't know, but I sure don't believe the OCT"

:boggled:

I don't deal with conspiracy theories. I've read enough to tell you where they come from.

[QOUTE] So does that mean you believe in remote controlled planes?
[/QUOTE]

This one comes from the Northwoods document. The plan for the false flag event back in the early 60s. to make it look like the Cubans shot down a civilian aircraft over Cuban airspace, when in reality it would be a remote controlled CIA aircraft wired with explosives. They had the technology to do that back then. The majority of people who are studying these issues believe that the WTC was a controlled demolition. Look at it from the standpoint if you had orchestrated the event. If you had the entire operation riding on planes hitting buildings in order for them to fall down, would you leave it up to a suicide hijacker who might change his mind (not to mention the activities of the hijackers, in particular M. Atta, put doubt in the claim that he was a suicidal islamic fundamentalist.) On the morning of 9/11, NORAD was engaged in War Games that involved Aircraft being flown by remote control that could have acted as some kind of attack mechanism.
In addition to all this, the FBI and NTSB said that the flight data recorders from the WTC were never found, when the firefighters who were at the site said that three of four were found. The following is from Counterpunch:

"If the information in those boxes is recoverable, or if, as is likely, it has been recovered already, it could give crucial evidence regarding the skill of the hijacker/pilots, perhaps of their strategy, of whether they were getting outside help in guiding them to their targets, of how fast they were flying and a host of other things.

Why would the main intelligence and law enforcement arm of the U.S. government want to hide from the public not just the available information about the two hijacked flights that provided the motivation and justification for the nation's "War on Terror" and for its two wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, but even the fact that it has the devices which could contain that information? Conspiracy theories abound, with some claiming the planes were actually pilotless military aircraft, or that they had little or nothing to do with the building collapses. The easiest way to quash such rumors and such fevered thinking would be openness.

Instead we have the opposite: a dark secrecy that invites many questions regarding the potentially embarrassing or perhaps even sinister information that might be on those tapes."

This information is the basis of the "remote controlled plane" argument.

Or that the "hijackers" were US Black Ops on a suicide mission?

In order to find out who were the controllers of the "hijackers" you would have to figure out who was in charge of the financial and panning stages of the attack. We have Khaled Sheikh Muhammad in Guantanamo. Who took responsibility from A to Z for the attack, under torture, five and a half years later. The man who we blame for the attack is in Pakistan and we don't seem to be interested in going after him. I say catch him and put him on public trial.

Or that rather than just shred evidence of knowing about the plot months before 9/11, perform a CD of WTC 7, where this evidence just so happened to be kept?

Technology is a lot more sophisticated then "shredding pieces of paper." Whatever the motivation for destroying WTC 7 might be, whether it was or wasn't destroyed, is beside the point. The Press for 9/11 truth is not the house of cards that the official story IS.

The fact of the matter being, the 9/11 Commission has been described as a "coverup" and a "whitewash" by the family members who have lost the most. The official explanation for the "faliures" of 9/11 is incompetence. And there is still information being covered up. And given the fact that the main beneficiaries of 9/11 were the military industrial complex and the Bush administration, who clearly used 9/11 as a pretext to launch two wars that they already had planned, in order to secure oil/gas reserves and pipeline routes, and 9/11 just happened to occur??

Again, I don't deal with conspiracy theories, I state the evidence that one would base a CT on. The bottom line is that if we ignore the controversy surrounding the 9/11 attacks, whether there was a conspiracy, then we do so at our own risk. And you can't deny that.

[apacherose105]

The 90% is taken into account that about 10% are LIHOPers who I consider to be paranoid and misinformed but not quite kooks,or people who don't really believe the Truther garbage but hate Bush so much they are willing to spread it in the belief that any garbage you throw is liable to stick.

really pathetic.

[apacherose105]

it may well be fantasists and loonies, neither of which I am.
I know there are videos of the attacks where the planes have been superimposed out, and given the metality of some of these people who believe this no-plane BS, they jump to conclusions, but they are no more delusional than the people who think that our Nation's response to this attack thus-far has been appropriate. Do they require the same amount of 'psychological analysis", O r should we just look at the evidence with an independant investigation and get this ridiculous arguement over with, do you not agree?

[beachnut]

I don't deal with conspiracy theories. I've read enough to tell you where they come from.

This one comes from the Northwoods document. The plan for the false flag event back in the early 60s. to make it look like the Cubans shot down a civilian aircraft over Cuban airspace, when in reality it would be a remote controlled CIA aircraft wired with explosives. They had the technology to do that back then. The majority of people who are studying these issues believe that the WTC was a controlled demolition. Look at it from the standpoint if you had orchestrated the event. If you had the entire operation riding on planes hitting buildings in order for them to fall down, would you leave it up to a suicide hijacker who might change his mind (not to mention the activities of the hijackers, in particular M. Atta, put doubt in the claim that he was a suicidal islamic fundamentalist.) On the morning of 9/11, NORAD was engaged in War Games that involved Aircraft being flown by remote control that could have acted as some kind of attack mechanism.
In addition to all this, the FBI and NTSB said that the flight data recorders from the WTC were never found, when the firefighters who were at the site said that three of four were found. The following is from Counterpunch:

"If the information in those boxes is recoverable, or if, as is likely, it has been recovered already, it could give crucial evidence regarding the skill of the hijacker/pilots, perhaps of their strategy, of whether they were getting outside help in guiding them to their targets, of how fast they were flying and a host of other things.

Why would the main intelligence and law enforcement arm of the U.S. government want to hide from the public not just the available information about the two hijacked flights that provided the motivation and justification for the nation's "War on Terror" and for its two wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, but even the fact that it has the devices which could contain that information? Conspiracy theories abound, with some claiming the planes were actually pilotless military aircraft, or that they had little or nothing to do with the building collapses. The easiest way to quash such rumors and such fevered thinking would be openness.

Instead we have the opposite: a dark secrecy that invites many questions regarding the potentially embarrassing or perhaps even sinister information that might be on those tapes."

This information is the basis of the "remote controlled plane" argument.



In order to find out who were the controllers of the "hijackers" you would have to figure out who was in charge of the financial and panning stages of the attack. We have Khaled Sheikh Muhammad in Guantanamo. Who took responsibility from A to Z for the attack, under torture, five and a half years later. The man who we blame for the attack is in Pakistan and we don't seem to be interested in going after him. I say catch him and put him on public trial.



Technology is a lot more sophisticated then "shredding pieces of paper." Whatever the motivation for destroying WTC 7 might be, whether it was or wasn't destroyed, is beside the point. The Press for 9/11 truth is not the house of cards that the official story IS.

The fact of the matter being, the 9/11 Commission has been described as a "coverup" and a "whitewash" by the family members who have lost the most. The official explanation for the "faliures" of 9/11 is incompetence. And there is still information being covered up. And given the fact that the main beneficiaries of 9/11 were the military industrial complex and the Bush administration, who clearly used 9/11 as a pretext to launch two wars that they already had planned, in order to secure oil/gas reserves and pipeline routes, and 9/11 just happened to occur??

Again, I don't deal with conspiracy theories, I state the evidence that one would base a CT on. The bottom line is that if we ignore the controversy surrounding the 9/11 attacks, whether there was a conspiracy, then we do so at our own risk. And you can't deny that.
I see you are a misinformation agent also. Northwoods was never done, why are you destroying your false information with self debunking logic?

You are not a no plane truther, you are a no fact truther; both are the same.

You are worse than the 9/11 truth members, you try to hide your truthy status, you just state evidence. Wow. What a cop out, you do not even have to come up with a conclusion, you just spread the false information so others can draw false conclusions.?
Spread it, your bs, with some juicy stories, and see what grows. oops you just did... (you forgot to read more info here, run...)

[apacherose105]

I see you are a misinformation agent also. Northwoods was never done, why are you destroying your false information with self debunking logic?

You are not a no plane truther, you are a no fact truther; both are the same.

You are worse than the 9/11 truth members, you try to hide your truthy status, you just state evidence. Wow. What a cop out, you do not even have to come up with a conclusion, you just spread the false information so others can draw false conclusions.?
Spread it, your bs, with some juicy stories, and see what grows. oops you just did... (you forgot to read more info here, run...)


Northwoods made it all the way to the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff but was never acted upon because it was rejected by higher ups. But the technology and the mentality has existed to carry that kind of attack out for a while, so it is not entirely out of the question in my opinion.

You can deride me all you want but you haven't given any proof to counter my claims, and thus, you fail. You are worse then a no-planer or a "Bush did 9/11" cop-out idiot.

I wan't to believe the government account. Please convince me that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. I'm counting on you to do this.

[beachnut]

Northwoods made it all the way to the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff but was never acted upon because it was rejected by higher ups. But the technology and the mentality has existed to carry that kind of attack out for a while, so it is not entirely out of the question in my opinion.

You can deride me all you want but you haven't given any proof to counter my claims, and thus, you fail. You are worse then a no-planer or a "Bush did 9/11" cop-out idiot.

I wan't to believe the government account. Please convince me that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. I'm counting on you to do this.
No, only people like you would do things like Northwoods. Only those who could do something like Northwoods would believe it is possible to apply such doltish ideas to 9/11.

All your claims having anything to do with 9/11 are false; please point out one single thing that is a fact. BTW, even you may be able to fly a jet into the buildings, it is simple, so drop the flying BS. Truth?

UBL said he was in on it; you must have a hearing problem; Plus UBL said a long time ago he would kill Americans where and when he could. Yes your ideas suffer from lack of research, it is called shallow research syndrome, if afflicts 99.999 percent of all truthers and this is why only 0.00087 percent of all engineers are in the 9/11 truth movement. Cool

So far you have zero evidence just talk and hearsay junk you could find has been talked about a long time ago here, and debunked to the nth degree. Sorry.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

I don't deal with conspiracy theories. I've read enough to tell you where they come from.

:words:

Again, I don't deal with conspiracy theories, I state the evidence that one would base a CT on. The bottom line is that if we ignore the controversy surrounding the 9/11 attacks, whether there was a conspiracy, then we do so at our own risk. And you can't deny that.

If you want to ignore proof that there was no Conspiracy other than 19 Arabic hijackers, funded by Al Qaeda, planned by KSM, etc then you are giving credence to conspiracy theories. You claim you do not deal with conspiracy theories, yet you obviously believe them.

Again... There is a BIG difference between a Conspiracy and a Conspiracy Theory. A CT is not just a theory about the crime of Conspiracy to commit XYZ. But let me guess. you think otherwise.

I find it funny that you just show up here and claim that you no one here has proven you wrong about anything.

Have you even READ anything here other this this thread? Didn't think so.

[Gravy]

Northwoods made it all the way to the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff but was never acted upon because it was rejected by higher ups.No. Northwoods was conceived by the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lyman Lemnitzer, who was a rabid anti-Communist. The hare-brainstorms within it, which did not call for the killing of Americans, were summarily dismissed by Robert McNamara. Lemnitzer, by the way, was later removed as the head of the JCS.

So, you're trying to show that the U.S. government is capable of killing thousands of its own people in a false flag attack by giving an example of a false flag idea from 40 years earlier that called for no Americans to be killed and that was rejected by the government?

Is this your idea of a joke? Try to keep in mind that this is a forum for critical thinkers.

[dudalb]

I get the feeling that apacherose105 is really trying to talk him of her self into believing that 9/11 was an inside job.

[Magenta]

Anyone notice that the site has a response to this thread?


Originally Posted by ChecktheEvidence
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95998

pomeroo After a year of experiencing the 9/11 fantasy movement in its various guises, I still retain my initial amazement at the lengths to which some people will go to create an alternate reality. Here is a determined, if deranged, attempt to show that nobody actually saw planes hit the Towers:

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cm...=134&Itemid=60

Please note that he seriously (?) contends that there were 117 people close enough to be witnesses. What could persuade such a person that there were thousands?

Is this study above really "deranged"? The anonymous (as usual) person making this post takes the figure out of context and does not explain how the figure was determined. Nor does he discuss the quoted witness sample size of 291. A "deranged MS-Access Query"? Hmmm


Sample size, my arse. All he did was cherry pick from the first responders' statements. He's ignored all the other eyewitness accounts.


Originally Posted by ChecktheEvidence
Quad4_72 : How is a person raised up in such a way that all critical thinking and logic are just thrown out the door? Is it for attention purposes?

Never mind how I was raised (a little about which can be found if you poke round here) - what about the actual evidence? Critical thinking? Shouldn't it be based on criticising the evidence?

buka001 : Do any websites carry a decent list of witness accounts to the impacts on WTC.

HAd a troofer arguing that not a single person saw a plane hit the building.

This friendly critical thinker clearly didn't reach the table at the bottom, which contains a link to the report - which contains a table of witness account portions in the appendix - and a link to a zip file with all the accounts. If you want to find the truth, you actually have to work to dig it out, not just expect someone else to summarise it for you.


Mr Johnson needs to look at all the evidence, not just that which suits his idea of the "truth".

[pomeroo]

Northwoods made it all the way to the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff but was never acted upon because it was rejected by higher ups. But the technology and the mentality has existed to carry that kind of attack out for a while, so it is not entirely out of the question in my opinion.

You can deride me all you want but you haven't given any proof to counter my claims, and thus, you fail. You are worse then a no-planer or a "Bush did 9/11" cop-out idiot.

I wan't to believe the government account. Please convince me that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. I'm counting on you to do this.



You could, of course, take Osama's word for it, but then you wouldn't be a fantasist.

[negativ]

Oh, for the love of pizza, I can't even believe this is a debate. Everyone knows that there aren't more than 35 or 40 people on the streets of Manhattan on a typical Tuesday morning.

[Drudgewire]

You could, of course, take Osama's word for it, but then you wouldn't be a fantasist.
Well now you're just being silly. :p

[Dave Rogers]

Is it my turn?

This one comes from the Northwoods document. The plan for the false flag event back in the early 60s. to make it look like the Cubans shot down a civilian aircraft over Cuban airspace, when in reality it would be a remote controlled CIA aircraft wired with explosives. They had the technology to do that back then.

A few points here:
(1) Northwoods was never carried out, so how do you know that the technology to carry it out existed?
(2) Northwoods called for a drone plane to be blown up while flying on a predetermined course over Cuban airspace. An accuracy of a few miles, give or take, would be acceptable. This is a problem several orders of magnitude simpler than remotely piloting a plane into a target of width about twice its own wingspan.

The majority of people who are studying these issues believe that the WTC was a controlled demolition.

Source? The majority of people with expertise who are studying these issues believe that the WTC was not a controlled demolition (since only Jowenko believes WTC7 was a CD, doesn't believe WTC1 and 2 were CDs, and al the very least Van Romero, Blanchard and Loiseaux don't believe any of them were CDs). A 95%+ majority of the US population don't believe MIHOP. What are your numbers for "people who are studying these issues", or are you just making this up?

Look at it from the standpoint if you had orchestrated the event. If you had the entire operation riding on planes hitting buildings in order for them to fall down, would you leave it up to a suicide hijacker who might change his mind (not to mention the activities of the hijackers, in particular M. Atta, put doubt in the claim that he was a suicidal islamic fundamentalist.)

If you had the entire operation planned to demolish a building that had been damaged by debris from the collapse of another building, would you be prepared to risk the security of the entire operation on the accuracy of your prediction that enough debris would strike to give visible damage and a fire? As for relying on suicidal fundamentalists, there is rather an extensive history of attacks that rely on them not changing their minds. The doubts about Atta are purely in the minds of members of the truth movement; your doubts are not evidence.

On the morning of 9/11, NORAD was engaged in War Games that involved Aircraft being flown by remote control that could have acted as some kind of attack mechanism.

No, you've made that one up. Unless you can provide a source?

In addition to all this, the FBI and NTSB said that the flight data recorders from the WTC were never found, when the firefighters who were at the site said that three of four were found.

Two firefighters, one of whom turned out to be a fake, said that they went round the site with three agents for one afternoon after thousands of cleanup workers had been picking over the debris for days, yet in that short time they found three black boxes that all the others would have to have been looking for, yet all missed. One account, highly debatable, source discredited, no corroboration. If you rely on this, you've failed Journalism 101.

I've removed the Counterpunch article because, given the anecdotal nature of its source, it's simply irrelevant speculation.

In order to find out who were the controllers of the "hijackers" you would have to figure out who was in charge of the financial and panning stages of the attack. We have Khaled Sheikh Muhammad in Guantanamo. Who took responsibility from A to Z for the attack, under torture, five and a half years later.

He also took responsibility from A to Z for the attack, under no torture whatsoever, six months before his capture, in an interview with al-Jazeera TV, and what he said after capture agrees very well with what he said before capture.

The man who we blame for the attack is in Pakistan and we don't seem to be interested in going after him. I say catch him and put him on public trial.

You know where he is, do you? Or are you making that up too?

And given the fact that the main beneficiaries of 9/11 were the military industrial complex and the Bush administration, who clearly used 9/11 as a pretext to launch two wars that they already had planned, in order to secure oil/gas reserves and pipeline routes, and 9/11 just happened to occur??

You do realise that the Unocal pipeline has never been built and will never be built because an alternative route was chosen and built before 9/11, don't you?

Again, I don't deal with conspiracy theories, I state the evidence that one would base a CT on. The bottom line is that if we ignore the controversy surrounding the 9/11 attacks, whether there was a conspiracy, then we do so at our own risk. And you can't deny that.

The bottom line is that when we actually examine the evidence, which the posters on this board have actually done, then all of it turns out to be meaningless, embellished or simply fabriacated. For further information, try looking at www.911myths.com (http://www.911myths.com) and actually following up on the links. All the evidence falls apart when you actually look at it.

Dave

[pomeroo]

Well now you're just being silly. :p

I know--I know. Sigh.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

*sigh* Chance of apacherose105 reading 911myths.com = 2%.

He's too far gone down the rabbit hole... not realizing that it leads right to the sewer

[Dave Rogers]

*sigh* Chance of apacherose105 reading 911myths.com = 2%.

I know. I was talking to the lurkers.

Dave

[Belz...]

I don't deal with conspiracy theories.

And yet you spew the same nonsense they do.

[Belz...]

Northwoods made it all the way to the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff but was never acted upon because it was rejected by higher ups. But the technology and the mentality has existed to carry that kind of attack out for a while, so it is not entirely out of the question in my opinion.

You can deride me all you want but you haven't given any proof to counter my claims, and thus, you fail. You are worse then a no-planer or a "Bush did 9/11" cop-out idiot.

I wan't to believe the government account. Please convince me that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. I'm counting on you to do this.

I wasn't aware that the burden of proof was NOT on the claimant. Namely, you.

[annexw]

I know. I was talking to the lurkers.

And we (and by we I mean me) appreciate it Dave. :)

[HL7442]

Northwoods IF it really existed could never be carried out with the technology circa 1961. The idea that an airliner would be the target leads one to ask which airline would allow itself to be a patsy of some dimwit plan.
The 9/11 tinfoil brigade have brought forth the same garbage concening 9/11 by saying both AA and UA colluded with the US gov't in allowing it's brand name to be used for a nefarious purpose.
That would never happen.