{pagination_links}
0 of {total_pages}
11. September 2001: Both Flight 77 and Flight 93 were shot down over the Atlantic Ocean ?
Posted: 29 April 2006 11:59 AM
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  8
Joined  2006-03-10

Here is what I think happened the 11.9.2001:

There were five planes remote controlled by Israels secret service organisation Mossad. NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command)  managed to shoot down two of the five planes. There were arab terrorists in each plane, but they did never control any of the planes, because Mossad controlled the planes by remote control, maybe by using a satellite.


1. Flight 11 hit one of the Twin Towers
2. Flight 175 hit the other Twin Tower
3. Pentagon was hit not by a passenger plane, but by a smaller plane, also this remote controlled. See picture under.

4. Both Flight 77 and Flight 93 were shot down over the Atlantic Ocean, and the planes disappeared in the ocean.

The goal for Flight 77 and Flight 93 were american navy ships in the Atlantic Ocean.

 

This to create a terror act which reminds of Pearl Harbor. The suicide pilot attack against Pentagon would also have reminded about Pearl Harbor.

Pearl Harbor illustration

 

One film about Pearl Harbor was released in May 2001. It could be a coincident, but it could also have been timed on purpose close to 11.9.2001, to help to create Pearl Harbor emotions for the US-citizens.


http://www.cinemasavvy.com/p/pearlharbormovie.html

Pearl Harbor Movie

Produced By: Jerry Bruckheimer Films & Touchstone Pictures

Release Date (US): May 21, 2001

 

President Bush sometimes, or often, compare 11.9.2001 with Pearl Harbor.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/02/bush.speech/
June 3, 2004

Bush made no mention of the election, instead reaching back to cast ongoing conflicts in historic terms. He compared the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which precipitated U.S. involvement in World War II.

 

 


NORAD shot down both Flight 77 and Flight 93. Those two planes were the last passenger planes to end their travels, while the planes which hit Twin Towers were the first two planes. NORAD was not able to react quickly enough to the first two passenger planes, but NORAD had time to react against the two last passenger planes. 

If all five planes had hit their intended targets, then the Bush government would probably have admitted it, including that the Pentagon building was hit by a plane smaller than a Boeing passenger plane. But the government would still have blaimed arab terrorists, even if Bush knew all the planes were remote controlled.


If Flight 77 and Flight 93 were shot down over the Atlantic Ocean, then the persons on board were maybe still alive after the planes had hit the bottom of the ocean. The water could then slowly have entered and filled up the planes so the persons on board drowned.  Maybe some of the persons on board also paniced. With other words, a terrible death.

That could be the motive for Defence Minister Donald Rumsfeld and other persons in Pentagon to lie about what happened to Flight 77 and Flight 93. They want to spare the relatives and families to those who were on board, from a terrible truth. The lie is probably well meant.

 

A very good article about Flight 77:
http://judicial-inc.biz/Dov_Zakheim_Fl_77.htm

A very good website about 11.9.2001:
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/index.html

Profile
 
Posted: 29 April 2006 12:41 PM   [ # 1 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8167
Joined  2005-02-06

Oh no, not another bout of 9/11 conspiracy looney…. :sick:

I believe it was not the Mossad, but the secret service of Monaco.
:roll:

 Signature 

———
The Kruger-Dunning effect is rampant on internet fora.
J. Kruger & D. Dunning (1999), Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 77, 1121-1134

Profile
 
Posted: 29 April 2006 01:03 PM   [ # 2 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5155
Joined  2005-01-27

You

 Signature 


“By the sweat on our brows, and the strengths of our backs…Gentlemen. Hoist the Colours! And you, madam, I warn you, I know the entire Geneva Convention by heart!”
Trust me.

Profile
 
Posted: 29 April 2006 02:16 PM   [ # 3 ]
Senior Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  201
Joined  2006-01-08

No more conspiracy theories…please?

Profile
 
Posted: 29 April 2006 02:21 PM   [ # 4 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

Since you didn’t give any evidence for any of that, Cansouth, that makes it harder for anybody to try to refute the evidence.  But if you really do believe all that stuff, then I doubt that any refutations would actually make any difference to you, anyway.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 29 April 2006 05:50 PM   [ # 5 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  152
Joined  2005-11-27

japan didn’t use kamikazes at Pearl Harbor

now really, if the government really had a big conspiracy, and you figured out the truth, wouldn’t the government just kill you so no one else can learn of their plans?

 Signature 

Always remember, “Boss is just double SOB backwards”.

Profile
 
Posted: 29 April 2006 08:38 PM   [ # 6 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1313
Joined  2006-02-05

I also find it very hard to believe that anyone but terrorists commandeered the airliners.

For one, jetliners are not operable by remote control, kind of a bit of a flaw in the evidence.

Now, maybe they were Mossad terorists disguised to look like Arabs?  And the intent is to get us upset with Osama bin Laden and also send more support to Israel?

Gee, I suppose, because all things are possible.  But no evidence of same was presented, and I would have to wonder how you, cansouth, a private citizen, could be privy to that evidence.

But maybe so, I just doubt the hell out of it.

Now, perhaps, the Bush Administration had an idea of the plot, and deliberately failed to stop it, so it could then pursue its own agenda, if evidence were presented from a plausible source, I would give that theory a chance in my mind.

After all, there is a trememdous amount of belief that FDR knew of the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor , and let it happen so he could enter the war with popular support behind him.  For one, most of our up-to-date carriers and battleships and supporting vessels were out to sea at the time of the attack, and there is far more evidence that substantiates same.

Dan the Hysterical Historian

Profile
 
Posted: 29 April 2006 11:06 PM   [ # 7 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  26384
Joined  2004-11-29

Remote-controlled planes?  Oh puh-lease! :roll:

 Signature 

Remember, a Dragon is for life!

Profile
 
Posted: 30 April 2006 01:49 AM   [ # 8 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5155
Joined  2005-01-27

Well Dan jr. actually you can fly a jetlinder remotely controlled. Remember that crash test years ago were they crash landed a Boeing 707 filled with dummies to test a new less explosive fuel. Takes a bit of rewiring and a few tons more of electronics etc. But hey, this is the Mossad so that shouldn

 Signature 


“By the sweat on our brows, and the strengths of our backs…Gentlemen. Hoist the Colours! And you, madam, I warn you, I know the entire Geneva Convention by heart!”
Trust me.

Profile
 
Posted: 30 April 2006 03:14 AM   [ # 9 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2006-04-29

I have always found it ironic that the day on which this terrible tragedy occured was 911.  That is the number you would (in USA)ring in case of emergencies and for assistance.

Profile
 
Posted: 30 April 2006 04:28 AM   [ # 10 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6943
Joined  2005-10-21

Well, yes, they apparently planned it to be 911..

What I found interesting was that New York has one of those mini-lotteries, where one picks a three-digit number. It popped up with 911, shortly after the attacks, and *thousands* of people won fifty bucks. Strange bit of synchronicity, that.

In any case, I’ve always been amused by conspiracy theorists.. The thought that some yutz living in their parent’s basement is somehow able to pierce the veil of secrecy that would require hundreds, if not thousands, of people to keep quiet about to maintain…

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsibility to disprove your claims, but rather your responsibility to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
Posted: 30 April 2006 05:19 AM   [ # 11 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  8
Joined  2006-03-10

1.
I am not a technical expert, but I believe it is possible to remote control Boeing planes.

http://www.911-strike.com/remote.htm

British aeronautical engineer Joe Vialls claims that all 757 and 767 aircraft are equipped with computerized remote flight control systems for the purposes of rescuing the planes from attempted hijackings.


2.
There seem to be no photos which clearly show Flight 77 in Pentagon nor Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. There are also no photos of the dead persons who were on board on neither of the two planes. So for the public the planes have “disappeared”.

Website abought Flight 77:
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77.html

Website about Flight 93:
http://killtown.911review.org/flight93.html


3.
One reason I believe it was Mossad who made the terror, is the war in Iraq. USA did not find any weapons of mass destruction and there were no evidence for ties between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida. I believe the main reason for the war in Iraq is Israels security and expansion.
http://www.acurse.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=194#194

http://www.lpva.com/Archives/Editorial/Hugman/20050901.shtml

The 9/11 commission and Iraq Survey Group’s 2004 findings that Iraq’s WMD and ties to Al Qaeda were nonexistent were the final nails in the coffin. Some continued to support the war after that, but only by being in denial that it was based on lies.

(Author:Michael Hugman is a student at Virginia Tech and a member of the Libertarians at Virginia Tech.)

Profile
 
Posted: 30 April 2006 05:47 AM   [ # 12 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2065
Joined  2005-12-05

You have all the answers.  You realize you will be disappearing soon never to be seen again.  Your home is probably already bugged…....

 Signature 

Space…..it seems to go on and on forever, but then you get to the end and the gorrilla starts throwing barrels at you. - Phlip J. Fry

Profile
 
Posted: 30 April 2006 11:44 AM   [ # 13 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8167
Joined  2005-02-06
cansouth - 30 April 2006 09:19 AM

I believe the main reason for the war in Iraq is Israels security and expansion.

I believe the main reason is to secure access to oil resources.
It has nothing to do with Israel.

 Signature 

———
The Kruger-Dunning effect is rampant on internet fora.
J. Kruger & D. Dunning (1999), Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 77, 1121-1134

Profile
 
Posted: 30 April 2006 11:47 AM   [ # 14 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5155
Joined  2005-01-27

Yeeaah Bebelicious has a point.
Beware of black choppers around your house, clicks on your phoneline. Only use cash. Grow a beard or shave it off if you have one and change your haircolor regulary. Use lots of different cars. Leave your home immediatly and start sleeping around in sleasy motels etc. Never contact your family and friends again.
You will die offcourse one day. If only of stress.

 Signature 


“By the sweat on our brows, and the strengths of our backs…Gentlemen. Hoist the Colours! And you, madam, I warn you, I know the entire Geneva Convention by heart!”
Trust me.

Profile
 
Posted: 30 April 2006 11:47 AM   [ # 15 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8167
Joined  2005-02-06
cansouth - 30 April 2006 09:19 AM

1.
I am not a technical expert, but I believe it is possible to remote control Boeing planes.

http://www.911-strike.com/remote.htm

British aeronautical engineer Joe Vialls claims that all 757 and 767 aircraft are equipped with computerized remote flight control systems for the purposes of rescuing the planes from attempted hijackings.

Then why was there a need to shoot them down?

 Signature 

———
The Kruger-Dunning effect is rampant on internet fora.
J. Kruger & D. Dunning (1999), Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 77, 1121-1134

Profile
 
Posted: 30 April 2006 12:55 PM   [ # 16 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2065
Joined  2005-12-05

I believe Cansouth has been taken over by alien beings!  Or an English professor.  You have seem to masterd use of the English language since your last post, friend.  If you are who you say you are…  mwhhahahhaha. 


http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forums/viewthread/1098/

 Signature 

Space…..it seems to go on and on forever, but then you get to the end and the gorrilla starts throwing barrels at you. - Phlip J. Fry

Profile
 
Posted: 30 April 2006 01:13 PM   [ # 17 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  8
Joined  2006-03-10
LaMa - 30 April 2006 03:47 PM

Then why was there a need to shoot them down?

1. If the planes were over the Atlantic Ocean, the planes were out of course. None of the two planes were supposed to fly over the Atlantic Ocean.

2. Maybe the arab terrorists, who might have been on board, did never answer any calls from NORAD.

3. Maybe NORAD or Pentagon found out that the remote control systems were occupied or did not work.

Profile
 
Posted: 30 April 2006 01:16 PM   [ # 18 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  8
Joined  2006-03-10
LaMa - 30 April 2006 03:44 PM

I believe the main reason is to secure access to oil resources.
It has nothing to do with Israel.

In the north of Iraq there are water resources.
The water can be lead into Israel through one or more pipelines.

Profile
 
Posted: 30 April 2006 01:27 PM   [ # 19 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05
cansouth - 30 April 2006 05:16 PM

The water can be lead into Israel through one or more pipelines.

You can lead water to an Israeli, but you can’t make him drunk!

Profile
 
Posted: 30 April 2006 01:29 PM   [ # 20 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5155
Joined  2005-01-27
cansouth - 30 April 2006 05:16 PM
LaMa - 30 April 2006 03:44 PM

I believe the main reason is to secure access to oil resources.
It has nothing to do with Israel.

In the north of Iraq there are water resources.
The water can be lead into Israel through one or more pipelines.

yeaah right and those pipelines have to go through Syria and Libanon or through Jordan. Indeed all friendly toward Israel, specially for water from Iraq to Israel.
Have a good look at this very simple map.

http://www.alternative-learning.org/international/middleast.html

 Signature 


“By the sweat on our brows, and the strengths of our backs…Gentlemen. Hoist the Colours! And you, madam, I warn you, I know the entire Geneva Convention by heart!”
Trust me.

Profile
 
Posted: 30 April 2006 01:35 PM   [ # 21 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5155
Joined  2005-01-27

And here is a nice pic of a remote controlled jet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CID_closeup_1.jpg

 Signature 


“By the sweat on our brows, and the strengths of our backs…Gentlemen. Hoist the Colours! And you, madam, I warn you, I know the entire Geneva Convention by heart!”
Trust me.

Profile
 
Posted: 30 April 2006 02:36 PM   [ # 22 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
cansouth - 30 April 2006 09:19 AM

1. I am not a technical expert, but I believe it is possible to remote control Boeing planes.

Yes, it is possible.  But taking over an aircraft by remote control is another matter.  Both aircraft were Boeing 757’s.  Boeing 757’s have two separate control systems, one computerised and one mechanical.  Any remote control system would be able to control the former, but not the latter.  And the mechanical system is designed to be able to over-ride the electronic system, so that if anything goes wrong with the computers the pilot can still fly the aircraft.  So you can’t force the airplanes into doing anything if the people in the cockpit don’t want it to do so.

2.  There seem to be no photos which clearly show Flight 77 in Pentagon nor Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. There are also no photos of the dead persons who were on board on neither of the two planes. So for the public the planes have “disappeared”.

If there are no photographs of a 757 in flight about to hit the Pentagon, there are also none of any other aircraft hitting it, or a missile.  So lack of photographic evidence doesn’t prove anything, especially if there is no photographic evidence of anything else happening instead.
There are, however, many eye-witness accounts of an airliner hitting the building.  Are they all part of some conspiracy, then?

And there wouldn’t be any photographs clearly showing Flight 77 in the Pentagon after the crash, as it would have been in lots of little pieces.  What do you expect after a crash like that, to have the whole intact jet sitting there on the lawn?  There were plenty of pictures of the pieces, though.

There were also plenty of pictures of the wreckage of Flight 93.

And of course they wouldn’t have shown pictures of the victims.  Could you imagine the uproar if some newspaper published images like that?

3.  One reason I believe it was Mossad who made the terror, is the war in Iraq. USA did not find any weapons of mass destruction and there were no evidence for ties between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida. I believe the main reason for the war in Iraq is Israels security and expansion.

Pure speculation.  And if a war was to be waged to benefit Israel, Syria would make a more sensible target than Iraq.  It’s a more immediate threat.

* * *

In order for this to have happened the way you’re saying, the following people would have to be involved in a huge conspiracy:

Dozens (at least) of air traffic controllers from across Ohio and Kentucky and Virginia and West Virginia and Maryland and Pennsylvania and New York and Delaware and New Jersey, plus anybody else who was in the room with them

The personel of all military radar stations

The pilots and any other crew members of all the jets, both those jets that fired and those that didn’t

The captains and much of the crews of the naval vessels

The pilots’ commanding officers, the armourers, the accountants, and other people who happened to be around when the jets returned

All the witnesses who saw the airplane hit the Pentagon

All the investigators and workers who were involved at the crash sites

All the people who were able to identify either their relatives’ remains, or else their personal belongings retrieved from the crash sites

Several hundred people in the government, including people at NORAD, the FAA, the President and his staff, the Department of Defense, etc.

All the people involved in making the fake wreckage, in creating the fake cell-phone calls from the airplanes, the fake funerals, the fake logs and records, and all the other fake things that would need to be manufactured and transported and placed

And those are just some of the people, and doesn’t even get into all the people overseas who would have to be involved, too

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 30 April 2006 02:45 PM   [ # 23 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8167
Joined  2005-02-06
cansouth - 30 April 2006 05:16 PM
LaMa - 30 April 2006 03:44 PM

I believe the main reason is to secure access to oil resources.
It has nothing to do with Israel.

In the north of Iraq there are water resources.
The water can be lead into Israel through one or more pipelines.

1. It was the US who invaded Iraq, not Israel, and they did so because of the oil;

2. Israel does not border Iraq: Jordan and Syria are inbetween;

3. Man, your ideas are so far-fetched… Maybe the Bosnia war was Israel too. There is water in Bosnia, you can lead it to Israel by a pipeline…

 Signature 

———
The Kruger-Dunning effect is rampant on internet fora.
J. Kruger & D. Dunning (1999), Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 77, 1121-1134

Profile
 
Posted: 30 April 2006 02:47 PM   [ # 24 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8167
Joined  2005-02-06

Oh, and there is water in Vietnam too. So that was Israel too. For a pipeline, again…

 Signature 

———
The Kruger-Dunning effect is rampant on internet fora.
J. Kruger & D. Dunning (1999), Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 77, 1121-1134

Profile
 
Posted: 30 April 2006 02:49 PM   [ # 25 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5155
Joined  2005-01-27

I propose a War on Water.

 Signature 


“By the sweat on our brows, and the strengths of our backs…Gentlemen. Hoist the Colours! And you, madam, I warn you, I know the entire Geneva Convention by heart!”
Trust me.

Profile
 
Posted: 30 April 2006 03:42 PM   [ # 26 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  152
Joined  2005-11-27
cansouth - 29 April 2006 03:59 PM

Here is what I think happened the 11.9.2001:

The goal for Flight 77 and Flight 93 were american navy ships in the Atlantic Ocean.

cansouth - 30 April 2006 05:13 PM

1. If the planes were over the Atlantic Ocean, the planes were out of course. None of the two planes were supposed to fly over the Atlantic Ocean.

I smell a contradiction!

 Signature 

Always remember, “Boss is just double SOB backwards”.

Profile
 
Posted: 30 April 2006 07:44 PM   [ # 27 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1313
Joined  2006-02-05

Well, cansouth does have just enough logic and reasoning behind himself (herself?) to remain totally convinced of his own conclusions.

And I surely admit nothing is impossible, but I do find the notions presented to be highly improbable.

And ships at sea as a target?  Naval vessels are quite well-protected, they travel in groups, and are quite capable of defending themselves from a rather lumbering jetliner.  Plus, the navigation of the jetliners to the ships would be very demanding of a crew.  No transponders, no radio guidance, the jetliner’s own radar is not the type that could track a sailing ship, etc.

And why?  Buildings such as the Pentagon or the White House, or Camp David, or Annapolis, or CIA Headquarters, so much more inviting as a target!  And if you did down a ship at sea, there would be no way-cool crater and rubble pile to display to your friends back home!  Only a big hole in the water.

But still, on the other hand, Israeli warpanes did attack our spy-ship, The Liberty, long ago, I think it was about 1980 or thereabouts, nearly sinking it, but the ship survived.  Israel claimed ‘mistaken identity’ but the Ship’s Captain says they knew damned well what ship they were attacking.

Whatever!

Dan the Fence-Sitter

Profile
 
Posted: 01 May 2006 01:12 AM   [ # 28 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5155
Joined  2005-01-27
Dan Jr. - 30 April 2006 11:44 PM

Well, cansouth does have just enough logic and reasoning behind himself (herself?) to remain totally convinced of his own conclusions.

No transponders, no radio guidance, the jetliner’s own radar is not the type that could track a sailing ship, etc.

Only a big hole in the water.

But still, on the other hand, Israeli warpanes did attack our spy-ship, The Liberty, long ago, I think it was about 1980 or thereabouts,
Dan the Fence-Sitter

1) he is talking about the mossad using sattelites and we all know offcourse that they are the best of the best of the best.

2) a hole in the water would be way cool.

3) The intelligence ship Liberty, AGTR-5, on June 8, 1967 was describing a slow, dogleg pattern a little less than 13 miles off the Egyptian coast in the Eastern Mediterranean. Without warning, rocket-firing Israel jets, followed after an interval by torpedo boats, pummeled her to near-death; 821 separate holes would later be counted in the scorched superstructure.

 Signature 


“By the sweat on our brows, and the strengths of our backs…Gentlemen. Hoist the Colours! And you, madam, I warn you, I know the entire Geneva Convention by heart!”
Trust me.

Profile
 
Posted: 01 May 2006 08:13 AM   [ # 29 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  26052
Joined  2004-11-08

These speculations just keep getting loonier and loonier.  What happened to the good old days when conspiracy theories actually made a kind of warped, illogical sense?

 Signature 

Heaven must be really boring, if you think about it logically.
All the angels must be snoring.  Who could stand perfection for eternity?

Not me. - George Hrab

Profile
 
Posted: 01 May 2006 08:25 AM   [ # 30 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1313
Joined  2006-02-05
LaMa - 30 April 2006 03:47 PM
cansouth - 30 April 2006 09:19 AM

1.
I am not a technical expert, but I believe it is possible to remote control Boeing planes.

http://www.911-strike.com/remote.htm

British aeronautical engineer Joe Vialls claims that all 757 and 767 aircraft are equipped with computerized remote flight control systems for the purposes of rescuing the planes from attempted hijackings.

Then why was there a need to shoot them down?

LaMa, do not destroy cansouth’s beautiful theories with ugly facts!

Dan the Appreciative

Profile
 
Posted: 01 May 2006 11:27 AM   [ # 31 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5155
Joined  2005-01-27
Charybdis - 01 May 2006 12:13 PM

These speculations just keep getting loonier and loonier.  What happened to the good old days when conspiracy theories actually made a kind of warped, illogical sense?

yeah
good ol

 Signature 


“By the sweat on our brows, and the strengths of our backs…Gentlemen. Hoist the Colours! And you, madam, I warn you, I know the entire Geneva Convention by heart!”
Trust me.

Profile
 
Posted: 01 May 2006 05:38 PM   [ # 32 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2065
Joined  2005-12-05

It doesn’t get much easier than this:

Make your own conspiracy theory

 


What They Don’t Want You to Know
In order to understand Deaf lesbians for Jesus you need to realize that everything is controlled by a a bunch of men with lumpy shorts made up of sun worshipping pagens with help from television chefs.
The conspiracy first started during the day the music died in the Canary Islands. They have been responsible for many events throughout history, including the Spanish Inquisition.

Today, members of the conspiracy are everywhere. They can be identified by smoking marijuana and chewing gum.

They want to head slam Rosie O’Donnell and imprison resisters in Star Jone’s house using alien transporters.

In order to prepare for this, we all must go to bed and forget about it. Since the media is controlled by Pam Anderson we should get our information from Arnold Schwartzenegger.

 Signature 

Space…..it seems to go on and on forever, but then you get to the end and the gorrilla starts throwing barrels at you. - Phlip J. Fry

Profile
 
Posted: 01 May 2006 09:25 PM   [ # 33 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1313
Joined  2006-02-05
Bebelicious - 01 May 2006 09:38 PM

It doesn’t get much easier than this:

Make your own conspiracy theory

 


What They Don’t Want You to Know
In order to understand Deaf lesbians for Jesus you need to realize that everything is controlled by a a bunch of men with lumpy shorts made up of sun worshipping pagens with help from television chefs.
The conspiracy first started during the day the music died in the Canary Islands. They have been responsible for many events throughout history, including the Spanish Inquisition.

Today, members of the conspiracy are everywhere. They can be identified by smoking marijuana and chewing gum.

They want to head slam Rosie O’Donnell and imprison resisters in Star Jone’s house using alien transporters.

In order to prepare for this, we all must go to bed and forget about it. Since the media is controlled by Pam Anderson we should get our information from Arnold Schwartzenegger.

Finally the truth!

Dan the Constant Seeker of Truth, Justice, and the American Way

Profile
 
Posted: 01 May 2006 10:53 PM   [ # 34 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  154
Joined  2006-03-12

And why?  Buildings such as the Pentagon or the White House, or Camp David, or Annapolis, or CIA Headquarters, so much more inviting as a target!  And if you did down a ship at sea, there would be no way-cool crater and rubble pile to display to your friends back home!  Only a big hole in the water.

So.. that means… this song I learned to sing in preschool… is really terrorist propaganda?  Or a secret code to begin the attack? Im shocked… appalled… lets get it banned!

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/holesea.htm

There’s a hole in the middle of the sea
There’s a hole in the middle of the sea
There’s a hole, there’s a hole
There’s a hole in the middle of the sea…..

Profile
 
Posted: 20 May 2006 12:54 PM   [ # 35 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2006-05-20

Hello Forum,

I recommend the DVD “In Plane Site.”  I’d also recommend the 911truth.org article that explains that the planes that hit the towers were smaller than the passenger planes they were purported to be.  The article may be in the archives.  I don’t know the title.  The film shows clearly what size the planes were because the towers can be used as measuring sticks.

Inquisitor

Profile
 
Posted: 20 May 2006 02:11 PM   [ # 36 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2006-05-20

Hi Smerk,

You’d feel differently about 911 if you’d accept that the towers were hit by cargo planes.  After all, Fox News reported that “flight 175” had no windows.  There were plenty of eyewitnesses.  They weren’t hallucinating.

Inquisitor

Profile
 
Posted: 20 May 2006 06:52 PM   [ # 37 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05

I found an photo of one of the planes that hit the WTC on 9/11 that was taken earlier by a planespotter.

Note that it is not particularly easy to make out the windows, even in a good quality image like this. With the naked eye, on a fast moving airplane and at a much greater distance, I’m not surprised people didn’t see any windows. It doesn’t prove they weren’t there.

Profile
 
Posted: 20 May 2006 08:13 PM   [ # 38 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2006-05-20

Hi David,

You apparently haven’t seen the DVD.  The Fox employee was so close to “175” that he saw it clearly wasn’t an airliner.  He would have seen the giant letters. 

Unless you believe that CNN altered the footage shown on the 911 video that can be ordered by the general public, the planes’ dimensions can’t be disputed.
If I were holding a ruler next to a model airplane,  you wouldn’t try to dispute its size.  The former towers’ widths are known.

Inquisitor

Profile
 
Posted: 20 May 2006 08:17 PM   [ # 39 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2006-05-20

Oops!

I meant to say “can be ordered by the general public.”  I just corrected it.

Inquisitor

Profile
 
Posted: 20 May 2006 11:48 PM   [ # 40 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2006-05-20

Accipiter,

If the government has nothing to hide, why haven’t they released the footage from all the other Pentagon security cameras?  The event was captured by cameras from many angles.  Why did they confiscate the footage from the gas station across the street?

Inquisitor

Profile
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 12:15 AM   [ # 41 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2006-05-20

Another key point: How could foreign terrorists spend weeks tearing down walls in order to plant explosives in all the WTC buildings?  One’s believing that they could pull off such a task without being detected would be colossal ludicrousness.

Inquisitor

Profile
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 02:27 AM   [ # 42 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3174
Joined  2005-05-19

Er, Inquisitor, they just have released some of the footage form the Pentagon’s security cameras, it was on the BBC news channel last week. Still shows a passenger plane smashing in to the side of the building.

 Signature 

“Never before in my time at the bar or on the bench have I ever had to deal with somebody who voluntarily allowed himself to be buggered by a dog on the public highway.”

Profile
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 02:55 AM   [ # 43 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05
Inquisitor - 22 May 2006 04:15 AM

Another key point: How could foreign terrorists spend weeks tearing down walls in order to plant explosives in all the WTC buildings?  One’s believing that they could pull off such a task without being detected would be colossal ludicrousness.

I agree, it’s quite ludicrous to believe foreign terrorists secretly planted tons of explosives in the WTC and I can’t believe how anyone could sensibly believe that. Of course, anyone else trying to plant tons of explosives would have exactly the same problem, hence it is just as ludicrous to believe explosives were planted by anyone.

Profile
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 05:16 AM   [ # 44 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Inquisitor - 21 May 2006 03:48 AM

Accipiter,

If the government has nothing to hide, why haven’t they released the footage from all the other Pentagon security cameras?  The event was captured by cameras from many angles.

Firstly, because it’s the Pentagon, and the Pentagon doesn’t make a habit of being very forthcoming.  Being the Department of Defense, they do have things to hide.  Secondly, because it’s all part of various criminal investigations, and such things aren’t usually made public.  And thirdly, because they already released still pictures, and have just released a video of it.  What, do you think that the airliner in that video was a big cardboard cutout, and that the other camera angles would show that it was hollow?

The whole event has been about as well documented as anything can be.  And if all the eyewitness testimonies, all the still photographs, and the video that they released aren’t enough for you, then you’re not going to believe anything.

Why did they confiscate the footage from the gas station across the street?

Inquisitor

Ummm. . .they took the footage from the gas station because it was this thing called “evidence”, which they need in order to conduct something called an “investigation”.  That’s what security camera footage is for.

Inquisitor - 22 May 2006 04:15 AM

Another key point: How could foreign terrorists spend weeks tearing down walls in order to plant explosives in all the WTC buildings?  One’s believing that they could pull off such a task without being detected would be colossal ludicrousness.

Indeed, quite ludicrous.  Which is why there couldn’t have been bombs planted in the buildings, and why it was the airplanes hitting them that damaged them.  Who needs bombs to damage a building, when you have tons of high-speed metal and thousands of gallons of highly combustable jet fuel?

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 05:45 AM   [ # 45 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Inquisitor - 20 May 2006 06:11 PM

Hi Smerk,

You’d feel differently about 911 if you’d accept that the towers were hit by cargo planes.  After all, Fox News reported that “flight 175” had no windows.  There were plenty of eyewitnesses.  They weren’t hallucinating.

Inquisitor

Inquisitor - 21 May 2006 12:13 AM

Unless you believe that CNN altered the footage shown on the 911 video that can be ordered by the general public, the planes’ dimensions can’t be disputed.
If I were holding a ruler next to a model airplane,  you wouldn’t try to dispute its size.  The former towers’ widths are known.

If that’s true, then show us.

You’d feel differently about 911 if you’d accept that the towers were hit by cargo planes.

Ah, yes, if we make a lot of baseless assumptions, then we could prove anything, couldn’t we?  If we simply accept that it was flying saucers that hit the buildings, then we can make a good case that the Martians attacked us!

I always love how these people insist that the government has the resources, the power, the knowledge, and the intelligence to come up with this whole plan and to mysteriously switch airplanes in midair (despite all the radars and everything) and to send in their magical stealth ninjas to fill a bunch of offices with special explosives (under the very noses of the office staff) that can survive the direct hit of a fuel-filled aircraft without damage, and in so many other ways to defy probability and the very laws of physics.  But then they claim that the very same government would be stupid enough to send in aircraft that look nothing like the airliners (even though the aircraft would be seen by thousands, and would doubtless be caught on camera).

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 06:06 AM   [ # 46 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Inquisitor - 20 May 2006 06:11 PM

After all, Fox News reported that “flight 175” had no windows.

Actually, the Fox News reporter was several miles away from the WTC, and saw an airplane fly overhead.  He never saw the airplane hit anything.  Also, he said that the airplane was clearly not painted in the United Airlines colours, while the airplane in the pictures clearly is.  So either whatever airplane he saw was some other aircraft, or else he’s a terrible observer.

And the wreckage in the building includes parts of the fuselage that do have windows in them.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 01:15 PM   [ # 47 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2006-05-20

The twin towers’ fires weren’t even hot enough to melt the windows next to the impact zone.  Not only were the fires not hot enough to melt steel, even if they had been, the buildings could not have collapsed at free fall speed in their own footprints.

I don’t feel that the firefighters who witnessed the implosions were liars.  Note that they weren’t allowed to testify at the 911 “hearings.”  The 911 Commision was complicated by many conflicts of interest.

I didn’t say anything about aliens or changing planes in mid-air.

WTC 7 wasn’t struck by anything and collapsed at free fall speed.  Larry Silverstein confirmed it was pulled.

Inquisitor

Profile
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 01:46 PM   [ # 48 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7682
Joined  2005-06-05
Inquisitor - 22 May 2006 05:15 PM

The twin towers’ fires weren’t even hot enough to melt the windows next to the impact zone.  Not only were the fires not hot enough to melt steel, even if they had been, the buildings could not have collapsed at free fall speed in their own footprints.

If only life was as simple as conspiracy theorists would have us believe….you state that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel and then, simplistically draw the conclusion that of course, the fires were then not the cause of the WTC collapse.

The failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

You also state that the buildings collapsed at free fall speed in their own footprints…you state this as though it somehow proves your arguments which really confuses me.

First, the buildings did not collapse at free fall speed, it would have taken 8 seconds for the collapse at that speed and in actuality it took ten seconds and furthermore a 500,000 ton structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down. 

Here is some excellent information though I am sure you will say it’s all part of the plot
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

 Signature 

FOLLANSBEE, WV; Having been alerted to the coming apocalypse at a recent church service, 6-year-old Julie Strand decided she needed to live for today and immediately stuck a peanut M & M up her left nostril.

Profile
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 02:20 PM   [ # 49 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2006-05-20

Chuck,

Give me one example of a steel beam building that suddenly collapsed due to just a fire (prior to the alleged 911 collapses due to fires).  There was a steel building with a fire so hot the windows melted yet it didn’t collapse.

You didn’t address the firefighters’ witnessing the series of explosions.  Those men in “In Plane Site” weren’t actors.

What’s also fishy is that the the alleged hijackers who lived in San Diego had drivers licenses and bank accounts in their real names.  They were even in the phone book!  Yet we’re supposed to believe they slipped through the FBI’s fingers.

Inquisitor

Profile
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 02:37 PM   [ # 50 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7682
Joined  2005-06-05

Yes, I did not address the eyewitness reports as it is my experience that eyewitness accounts are the least reliable type of evidence and rarely need rebuttal.

As far as your statement that no other steel buildings have collapsed due to fire…..once again, you are being overly simplistic, no one is trying to say that the fire, and only the fire was the cause of collapse.

Several factors contributed to the collapse including the initial impact and subsequent inneffectiveness of the fire proof foam which some speculate was actually blown off the steel at the time of impact.

Tell you what, you remove the fire proofing from a 500,000 ton tower, crash a fuel filled jet into it and lets see what happens.

On your last point, don’t expect me to defend the FBI.

 Signature 

FOLLANSBEE, WV; Having been alerted to the coming apocalypse at a recent church service, 6-year-old Julie Strand decided she needed to live for today and immediately stuck a peanut M & M up her left nostril.

Profile
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 03:16 PM   [ # 51 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  152
Joined  2005-11-27
Inquisitor - 22 May 2006 05:15 PM

WTC 7 wasn’t struck by anything and collapsed at free fall speed.  Larry Silverstein confirmed it was pulled.

Inquisitor

Inquisitor - 22 May 2006 04:15 AM

Another key point: How could foreign terrorists spend weeks tearing down walls in order to plant explosives in all the WTC buildings?  One’s believing that they could pull off such a task without being detected would be colossal ludicrousness.

Inquisitor


Then why did it fall down?

 Signature 

Always remember, “Boss is just double SOB backwards”.

Profile
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 05:36 PM   [ # 52 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Inquisitor - 22 May 2006 05:15 PM

The twin towers’ fires weren’t even hot enough to melt the windows next to the impact zone.

First, on what evidence are you claiming that no windows were melted?  All the pictures I can see are at too great a distance and have too much smoke in the way to see the condition of the windows clearly.  Secondly, what were the windows made of?  There are plenty of glass-like substances that have better heat tolerances than many metals, and it’s not like they would have been supporting any real weight, either.  Third, who says that there needed to be temperatures high enough to melt steel?  All you need is for the temperature to be enough to soften or distemper the metal.  There was a large fuel fire after the airplane hit, and that would have produced enough heat for the metal to warp (I’ve seen plenty of buildings that burned down just from ordinary fires, and that had their metal beams warped by that amount of heat).  Or are you trying to say that there was no fire, and that all the flames and smoke that all the eyewitnesses and cameras saw was just special effects?

the buildings could not have collapsed at free fall speed in their own footprints.

And they didn’t.  And what does this have to do with anything?

I didn’t say anything about aliens or changing planes in mid-air.

Not about aliens, no, but you did about them changing airplanes.

WTC 7 wasn’t struck by anything and collapsed at free fall speed.  Larry Silverstein confirmed it was pulled.

Here’s what Silverstein apparently said:  “I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”

After the building was already on fire, they decided to go in, place explosives, and knock it down (they had something like eight hours in which to do so, since the building didn’t finally fall until late afternoon).  They openly talked about it and planned it, which means that it had nothing to do with any sort of a conspiracy.  Also, if it was only on fire, why would they decide to pull it down?  If the fire wasn’t enough to do major structural damage to the building, then it would make more sense to just leave the building there and repair what would be mainly cosmetic damage.  But they decided to pull it, which meant that they thought that the fire alone was enough to destroy the building, and so they wanted to destroy it before the fire did so that it would fall in a less dangerous way.  So really, what Silverstein is saying is that 1) the fires alone were enough to make the buildings fall, and 2) the fall of the building had nothing to do with any sort of government conspiracy.

So, what does this have to do with the airplanes hitting the other towers, or the Pentagon, or crashing in Pennsylvania, and how does this do anything to “prove” a conspiracy by anyone other than the terrorists?

Inquisitor - 22 May 2006 06:20 PM

Give me one example of a steel beam building that suddenly collapsed due to just a fire (prior to the alleged 911 collapses due to fires).  There was a steel building with a fire so hot the windows melted yet it didn’t collapse.

Give me one example of one of the World Trade Center buildings being hit by a fuel-filled Boeing and not falling down.  Not many buildings (if any) are built in the exact same manner as the WTC buildings, nor have many buildings had a 767 slam into them at high speed.  The only event that can compare to the airliner striking the first building was the other airliner striking the second building. . .and in both cases, the building fell.  So, this means that in all known similar incidents, the results were the same.

You didn’t address the firefighters’ witnessing the series of explosions.  Those men in “In Plane Site” weren’t actors.

I’m not going to buy some DVD that uses lots of flawed reasoning to try to support some weird claims, so I can’t tell what firefighters you’re referring to or exactly what they say.  I do know that a number of people saw, as the buildings were falling, things that looked like explosions. . .which is exactly what you would expect to see if a building was falling in on itself.

If there were explosives there, then they would have had to be able to survive a direct hit by a Boeing and the resulting fireball (after all, the “explosions” took place a while after the crash).  Also, as you yourself already pointed out, there wasn’t any way to put the explosives in place.

What’s also fishy is that the the alleged hijackers who lived in San Diego had drivers licenses and bank accounts in their real names.  They were even in the phone book!  Yet we’re supposed to believe they slipped through the FBI’s fingers.

Plenty of other people do the same.  The FBI is made of people, not superhuman psychics.  And again, if this was some sort of big government conspiracy, don’t you think that they would have been slightly more careful about covering up the official records on the hijackers?

sandwich maker - 22 May 2006 07:16 PM

Then why did it fall down?

Termites, obviously.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 09:09 PM   [ # 53 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2006-05-20

Softened steel could not have accounted for the speed at which they fell.  The beams would have had to have snapped all the way down (a series of snaps).  You don’t even need a physics degree to tell what happened.

Your asking if I perhaps I don’t believe there were fires was way out of line.

Inquistitor

Profile
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 09:13 PM   [ # 54 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2006-05-20

As far as accessing the buildings is concerned, intelligence agencies have tremendous power.

Inquisitor

Profile
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 09:30 PM   [ # 55 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1313
Joined  2006-02-05

You folks are truly great, you know?

This thread is an excellent example of why I have come to love this website.

While I certainly have my own opinions on 911, and the comments made by various individuals, the wonderful thing that I see is that everyone is being polite, respectful, thoughtful, and also sincere.

Not to mention informative!

And, of course, entertaining!

Thanks, everyone!


Dan the Happy Observer

Profile
 
Posted: 22 May 2006 09:49 PM   [ # 56 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2006-05-20

I see your point.  I’m happy to be respectful until I’m personally attacked.

Inquisitor

Profile
 
Posted: 23 May 2006 03:14 AM   [ # 57 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05

If eye-witnesses have suddenly become so infallible, why are the eye-witnesses to the Pentagon crash always dismissed by conspiracy theorists?

Omar Campo, a municipal worker cutting the grass near the site, said “It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane, I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire.”

:exclaim:

Profile
 
Posted: 23 May 2006 04:21 AM   [ # 58 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8167
Joined  2005-02-06
Inquisitor - 22 May 2006 05:15 PM

The twin towers’ fires weren’t even hot enough to melt the windows next to the impact zone.  Not only were the fires not hot enough to melt steel,

Someone I know recently had his house-boat burn down after his vacuum cleaner caught fire. He showed us some pictures last Saturday.

Above 1 meter, everything was completely destroyed. Equipment had molten, things burnt to ashes. Below 1 meter many things were undamaged. Even paper was undamaged.

He showed us the stack of equipment consisting of a VCR, a radio tuner and a DVD recorder stacked on each other. The VCR was completely molten. The radio tuner was half molten. The DVD recorder was intact and still functions.

The top of his desk chair had completely burned away. The seat was still okay.

Fire behaves funny, and its too easy too draw conclusions from things not being damaged.

 Signature 

———
The Kruger-Dunning effect is rampant on internet fora.
J. Kruger & D. Dunning (1999), Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 77, 1121-1134

Profile
 
Posted: 23 May 2006 05:14 AM   [ # 59 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05
Inquisitor - 23 May 2006 01:09 AM

Softened steel could not have accounted for the speed at which they fell.  The beams would have had to have snapped all the way down (a series of snaps).

Actually the trusses need only to have been softened to distort and transfer a considerable shear-force across the bolts holding them in place. The building was designed to transfer the load on to the central and perimeter columns directly, the bolts were merely to keep them from moving around and could not have taken the strain.

Carefully balance on an empty drinks can. When you are stable, get someone to tap the side of the can lightly with a wooden spoon. The can, which previously supported your entire weight with ease, collapses suddenly and completely straight down. The slight distortion of the load bearing cylinder of the can by the spoon is enough to weaken it to well below the rigidity needed to support a full-grown man.

When I was learning Statics and Dynamics (twenty years ago, f***ing hell!) we did this trick with a coke can, but they make them thinner now, so try a beer can instead.

You don’t even need a physics degree to tell what happened.

No, but a knowledge of engineering helps. I’m not a civil engineer (I’m a damn rude one!), but other CEs have said that the towers would have collapsed just from the fire, even without the damage to the structure and fireproofing from plane impact. Even my own meagre structural engineering experience meant that on 9/11, watching the burning buildings on TV, I was amazed that they were still standing, not that they later fell.

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

Profile
 
Posted: 23 May 2006 05:40 AM   [ # 60 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Inquisitor - 23 May 2006 01:13 AM

As far as accessing the buildings is concerned, intelligence agencies have tremendous power.

Inquisitor

They actually have a lot less power than Hollywood and all the espionage novel authors would have you think, really (which is why all those movies and books are fiction).  They may have access to a few things that most of the rest of us can’t (legally) get, but they’re still only people, and still have all the limitations that people have.  Nor are they all one big unified monolithic entity.

Could the CIA or somebody like that set off a truck bomb at the building?  Sure.  Could they plant a few small suitcases full of C4, or place some hidden cameras, or break into office files there?  Of course.  Those are all small-scale jobs that could be done in a busy building.

Using explosives to bring down a building is more than just throwing a few pounds of TNT into a ventilation shaft when nobody’s looking, though.  Remember, a truck bomb years earlier hadn’t been enough by itself to knock down one of the buildings.  You need to carefully place the explosives.  It would have taken a fair number of people working for several days, drilling into walls and sawing into things, to place all the charges.  And you think that they could sit around doing that without anybody noticing them, or noticing all the holes that have suddenly appeared in the walls, or the piles of explosives sitting around?

The only way that they could have set up the explosive charges quickly would be to just have huge piles of them filling the offices there.  And that would be even more noticeable than the holes and the small stacks of explosives that a proper demolition would involve.

Also, remember that the buildings fell a while after the airplanes had hit, and after there had been a tremendous fire.  Which means that the explosives would have needed to survive the shock of the impact and then the heat from the fire.  While most explosive compounds used in demolitions these days don’t actually explode when there’s a fire around them, they will still burn.  And the detonators, which would have needed to already be in place, often will react quite violently to heat.  Nor does wiring or radio receivers react well to being on fire.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 23 May 2006 06:48 AM   [ # 61 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
David B. - 23 May 2006 09:14 AM

Actually the trusses need only to have been softened to distort and transfer a considerable shear-force across the bolts holding them in place. The building was designed to transfer the load on to the central and perimeter columns directly, the bolts were merely to keep them from moving around and could not have taken the strain.

And it’s not like a lot of temperature is needed to soften rivets and bolts.  Riveters used to carry around their hot rivets in buckets, and even after being dragged around for a while like that the metal was still soft enough to be bent a bit when the rivets where driven into place.  The riveters didn’t have blast furnaces hidden in their buckets, either.

Jet fuels can easily burn at anything from 2000 to 6000

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 23 May 2006 09:05 AM   [ # 62 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1313
Joined  2006-02-05

It is easy to imagine that when one floor collapsed downward onto the next lower floor, its impact and the sudden load on that floor would then cause the collapse of that floor, then the two hitting the one below would collapse it, and so on.

As far as conspiracy theories, if someone could supply a plausible motive for hiding or disguising the terrorist attack, or even faking it, then the evidence to support same would be much more credible, to me.

Kind of like the conspiracy by NASA to not let us know about life on Mars…...if there was life, or evidence of previouis life, their budget would go up so fast, and a mission launched to examine the artifacts.  Therefore, the conspiracy evidence lacks credence.

Same with the Towers, and the Pentagon, to me, at least.

Now, the motive to come up with invented conspiracies?  Easy!  It sells movies and books!  Gets you on Oprah!  And, yes, the ultimate arbiter of truth and sensibilities, Montel!!!!!

Dan the Open-Minded Skeptic

Profile
 
Posted: 26 May 2006 07:06 AM   [ # 63 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05
Dan Jr. - 23 May 2006 01:05 PM

It is easy to imagine that when one floor collapsed downward onto the next lower floor, its impact and the sudden load on that floor would then cause the collapse of that floor, then the two hitting the one below would collapse it, and so on.

When I was learning engineering, one of the courses was Statics, basically the design and analysis of structures whose elements aren’t moving relative to each other. Our end of year project was to build a bridge to span an 18” gap out of about 50g of balsa and an A4 sheet of cartridge paper (and some glue). The bridge would be loaded to destruction and the fail-weight over the bridge-weight would be your score.

My partner and I spent half a week lovingly hand-crafting a truss bridge with paper stabilised joints for each of the members, it failed at about 50 kilos. One pair just stuck everything they had together with as much glue as possible; that took about 65 kilos but weighed nearly twice as much as the other bridges.

One pair, however, really went to town. Lead by the guy who would go on to get the only Engineering first of that year, he and his partner had carfully steamed or soaked their balse into a stack of catenary arches, the two spans held in place by a tiny truss made be splitting a 2mm spar of balsa into two. It was beautiful, delicate, light and extremely strong. The lecturer gave up trying to break it at 80 kilos, and suggested instead that one of the team try to walk on it. So they did. A full-grown man stood carefully on the this tiny balsa structure on top of the desk at the front of the theatre, cheered on not just by the engineers, but by the physics students who had heard the cheers and laughs and had come next door to watch. I always like to think of this as the specific moment everything started to go wrong.

This chap who had rather nervously set one foot on the centre of bridge suddenly found the call of fame irresistable. There were girls in the audience now, not the one or two familiar B.Eng girls (our year was about 95% male), but also lots of physics babes (physics had a much more ameniable 60/40 split), one of whom I would later marry; a show was called for. So he decided to show just how strong the bridge was (and how brave/manly/clever he was) by bouncing up and down a bit, just for effect.

Pride goes before a fall, and on the third bounce the bridge collapsed, or rather it practically exploded into a shower of little balsa splinters, and while he just managed to stop himself from a heavy fall off the table top, the rest of the room just fell about in hysterics. Blushing and a bit shocked, the poor sap asked bemusedly, “What happened?”

“Ah, Steven,” replied the lecturer, “you’ll find that out next term. When we cover Dynamics!”

Profile
 
Posted: 26 May 2006 09:39 PM   [ # 64 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1313
Joined  2006-02-05

Gee, sometimes the answer is so obvious!

Both of these jetliners went down due to use of bogus fuel additives!


Dan, who is often a kind of a ‘fool additive’ himself

Profile
 
Posted: 27 May 2006 01:39 PM   [ # 65 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2006-05-27

Hi, I’m new to this forum and I bring over 20-years of Non-Destructive Testing, Military experiance, Naval and military history experiance, structural mechanics theory and welding and steel fabrication experiance. I’m a retired Navy Chief Petty Officer.

Here is what I think happened the 11.9.2001: There were five planes remote controlled

Oh man, we have some real fruits from the loon here don’t we? Haven’t we gotten tired of these 9/11 fruit bats? They’re worse than the JFK/UFO conspiracy loons you see on Discovery Channel every now and then.

One question for Captain nutjob here….if these planes were going out to aircraft carriers in the Atlantic? How could they land? I don’t think commercial jets have tailhooks.

9/11 conspiracy fruitbats need to be lumped in with Al Queda supporters and locked up.

Profile
 
Posted: 27 May 2006 01:43 PM   [ # 66 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2006-05-27

And it

Profile
 
Posted: 27 May 2006 01:47 PM   [ # 67 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2006-05-27

The twin towers

Profile
 
Posted: 28 May 2006 06:34 AM   [ # 68 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

Okay, DanNDT, let’s try to keep this above the kindergarten-playground level of calling everybody who disagrees with you silly names.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 28 May 2006 06:40 AM   [ # 69 ]
New Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2006-05-28

Woah . That really makes me want to fly

 Signature 

Foamy Will Spread His Squirrely Wrath Upon all of you if this isn’t clicked

Profile
 
Posted: 28 May 2006 10:48 AM   [ # 70 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1313
Joined  2006-02-05
Accipiter - 28 May 2006 10:34 AM

Okay, DanNDT, let’s try to keep this above the kindergarten-playground level of calling everybody who disagrees with you silly names.

DanNDT:  Heed the above, please.

This site is fun and informative because of the quality and breadth of the postings and the members, but Accipiter is qiving you great advice!

Do not take your postings down to the personal-attack level, please.  That ruins the spirit of fun and sharing, and will also encourage many people to simply not post their thoughts, or quit visiting the site.

That said, welcome, it is great to have people with highly-educated and well-trained minds post here, it balances out my usually less than well-thought-out postings, keeping all our nostrils above water just enough to breathe.

Dan the Egalitarian

Profile
 
Posted: 28 May 2006 10:52 AM   [ # 71 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1313
Joined  2006-02-05

Well, after reading the first topic on Hoaxes today, now we know what really happened in those cockpits:  some terrorist or prankster hooked up a vial of his dehydrated water to the air-circulation system on the jet-liners, and the pilots drowned.

Any fool can easily see this!

Dan the Detective

Profile
 
Posted: 29 May 2006 01:00 AM   [ # 72 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2006-05-20

Silverstein claims the fireman told him he wasn’t sure if he could contain the fire.  Yet it would be safe to go in with explosives? It would have taken at least a few days to conduct a structural analysis and then plant the explosives in a 47 story building.  It was a perfect, symetrical implosion that required experts.  What team carried out the implosion?  WTC 7’s collapse was omitted from the 911 Commission Report.  Why not conduct a full investigation?
Actually, there were fires on just two floors (see photo).  There was no chance of a collapse due to the fires.
There’s also firefighters’ communications on this site http://www.prisonplanet/011904wtc7.html.  Once again, I’ll mention that the firefighters weren’t allowed to recount their experiences for the 911 Commission because they would have said the twins’ fires weren’t that great.
The Windsor Hotel burned for 24 hours and didn’t collapse.

Inquisitor

Profile
 
Posted: 29 May 2006 08:20 AM   [ # 73 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Inquisitor - 29 May 2006 05:00 AM

Silverstein claims the fireman told him he wasn’t sure if he could contain the fire.  Yet it would be safe to go in with explosives?

That depends on where they put the explosives.  Obviously, trying to put them right in the middle of the flames themselves would be rather tricky.  But from the footage I’ve seen, it looks like the building collapsed from the basement.

It would have taken at least a few days to conduct a structural analysis and then plant the explosives in a 47 story building.  It was a perfect, symetrical implosion that required experts.

Or just a whole bunch of well-placed explosives on the central load-supporting columns in the basement.

What team carried out the implosion?

Why not ask them and find out?  Instead of making up things to fill in the gaps in your knowledge, why not try finding out the answers from people who might actually know?

WTC 7’s collapse was omitted from the 911 Commission Report.  Why not conduct a full investigation?

Again, why not ask them and find out?

Apparently they didn’t investigate the fall of that building because they felt that there wasn’t a need; after all, they would have had the reports from the fire department and Silverstein and whomever detailing why and how the building fell.  And if there was a government conspiracy with something to hide about WTC 7, don’t you think that they’d be smart enough not to leave a gaping hole like that in the report?  They would have come up with some story about what happened.  Since they didn’t, then that means that they don’t care if people get curious about WTC 7.

Actually, there were fires on just two floors (see photo).

Actually, there was no visible smoke or flames coming out of the windows on the other floors.  That’s what a photograph would show.  It wouldn’t tell you anything about what was going on inside of the building.  You also don’t see any floors or ceilings in the external photographs of the building.  Does that mean that there were none inside?

There was no chance of a collapse due to the fires.

The New York Fire Department thought otherwise.  I tend to trust their judgment on such things more than I do yours.  Nor, really, does it truly matter if the fires were enough to cause the building to fall down.  All that matters is that they were bad enough that the experts on scene (the firemen) thought that they were bad enough.  As you yourself have repeatedly mentioned, no building like the WTC buildings had previously collapsed due to fires before that day, so they were working in somewhat uncertain territory.  It makes sense that they’d choose to err on the side of caution and try to safely demolish the building, rather than have it fall over and do more damage.

There’s also firefighters’ communications on this site http://www.prisonplanet/011904wtc7.html.

You forgot the .com in that.  It should be http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html.  However, the sound clip that I assume you’re referring to doesn’t seem to want to work for me (my Internet connection isn’t the best in the world, so I expect it’s because of that rather than any fault with the website itself).

Once again, I’ll mention that the firefighters weren’t allowed to recount their experiences for the 911 Commission because they would have said the twins’ fires weren’t that great.

I’m not motivated enough to look through the entire Commission Report and all the Commission’s minutes to see if the firefighters really “weren’t allowed” to do so, so I’ll just take your word on that for now.  But I doubt that the Commission said, “We aren’t allowing them to give their reports because they’ll tell us that the fires weren’t that great”.  That reasoning is probably just somebody else’s interpretation.

You implied earlier on that the Commission was involved in the conspiracy because they left out some stuff on WTC 7; if this was so, then it wouldn’t have mattered what the firemen said to them.  If the firemen did know something sinister, then the Commission would want to know exactly what the firemen had to say, so that they’d know what they had to gloss over in their report.  The only reason to hide the firemen’s evidence from the Commission is if at least part of the Commission was not involved in the conspiracy. . .in which case, that means that those non-involved people also thought that there was nothing suspicious about WTC 7.

The Windsor Hotel burned for 24 hours and didn’t collapse.

And if the terrorists had flown their airplanes into the Windsor Hotel instead of the World Trade Center, that might even be relevant.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 29 May 2006 10:08 AM   [ # 74 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1313
Joined  2006-02-05

Accipiter, quit destroying such beautiful conspiracy theories with your ugly facts.

You should be ashamed of yourself!

And why didn’t they just blow a bunch of that dehydrated water on the flames?  Figure that one out, smarty-pants!

Dan the Arbiter-Guy

Profile
 
Posted: 29 May 2006 02:10 PM   [ # 75 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2006-05-20

I cited the Windsor Hotel example to show that WTC 7 wasn’t in danger of collapsing.  I meant to place that sentence with the WTC 7 section.

I’m not convinced that a demolition team could have accomplished the task that quickly even if they had placed the explosives just in the basement.  I’m not aware of any previous incidents of teams’ rushing into demolish a burning building. 

Inquisitor

Profile
 
Posted: 29 May 2006 03:31 PM   [ # 76 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2006-05-20

I feel that prisonplanet is an independent source.  The fires had apparently died down considerably by the time the firemen got all the way up to them.  If the transcripts say there were just pocket fires in the towers, I believe it.  And so do huge numbers of people in New York, including the EMT who witnessed explosions going off in WTC 6’s lobby.  I believe that was the building that collapsed while the towers were still standing.

I’ll be more careful with posting the links.

Inquisitor

Profile
 
Posted: 29 May 2006 03:51 PM   [ # 77 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05
Inquisitor - 29 May 2006 07:31 PM

I feel that prisonplanet is an independent source.

It is not. It is affliated with Alex Jones, who has consistently maintained an anti-government stance. The site’s information and conclusions will have been chosen to support the editorial policy of the site and it should be considered about as independent a source of information as whitehouse.gov or defenselink.mil.

Profile
 
Posted: 29 May 2006 09:51 PM   [ # 78 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2006-05-20

I can’t verify all their articles so that could be true.  That doesn’t mean we should throw out everything on the site.  That EMT’s name was given so there could be a follow-up investigation.  There’s also mainstream news coverage of WTC 6’s sudden collapse.

We know from the other footage that WTC 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds.  Wouldn’t such a perfect implosion require charges to be placed on multiple floors?  How could a team accomplish that so quickly with flames and smoke in the building?  I doubt it could be pulled off that quickly even with no fires in the building.

Inquisitor

Profile
 
Posted: 29 May 2006 11:29 PM   [ # 79 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Inquisitor - 30 May 2006 01:51 AM

We know from the other footage that WTC 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds.  Wouldn’t such a perfect implosion require charges to be placed on multiple floors?

No.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 06 June 2006 09:58 AM   [ # 80 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2006-06-06

I’d like to know how they did it, but it’s clear 9/11 is a hoax. The Bush Administration, DoD, DoJ, FBI, CIA and NSA all told many lies and obstructed all the investigations. The official story falls apart under close scrutiny. The alibi of “system failure” and “incompetence” don’t stand up; especially not when 3000 people have been mass murdered, and the people on whose watch it happened have been promoted, given increased budgets and responsibility, and have since lied about Iraq, torture,  rendition, secret prisons, indefinite detention and disappearings and warrantless spying. There is a decades long history warning of planes as weapons, and there were warnings of nearing attacks from over 11 countries- 11 is the number that were reported in the MSM. As fantastic as it seems, history shows governments often stage or allow an attack to rile their people into supporting wars. It’s declassified information that the US did this in the Gulf of Tonkin- just google that and “declassified documents”. Over 50,000 American soldiers died in Vietnam. Whoever gets the nomination for the Democrats and the Republicans, that person is from the same elite class. Too many of these people don’t care who they hurt ammassing greater wealth and power; for some it seems they like it- remember how Bush and Cheney were lusting to go to war in Iraq, and now with Iran?

It’s obvious from the 70% of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee’s very relevant, important questions that were
ignored by the Commission, that something is seriously wrong with the
official 9/11 story.
http://911independentcommission.org/questions.html

In addition, there are the 115 ommissions and distortions documented
by David Ray Griffin
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404

This timeline of people and events is composed from mainstream sources
http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

One of the reasons FEMA was created was to implement martial law and suppress dissent in the event of widespread oppostion to foreign invasions. http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/sp030311.shtml
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/27/1027497418339.html

These people are the reason the US is hated and despised. What they did on 9/11, they’ve been doing to the people in other countries for centuries. They’ve done it here with Pearl Harbor, MKUltra, Tuskegee, etc. As a society, we need to come to terms with the fact that just like we have serial killers, mass murderers and child molesters in our midst, the human gene pool also produces psychopathic predators that worm their way into high office. It should be expected. We need to put safeguards in place, for the sake of our children’s and our Republic’s future.

 Signature 

Zogby Poll Finds Over 70 Million Voting Age Americans Support New 9/11 Investigation
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060522022041421

Profile
 
Posted: 06 June 2006 03:10 PM   [ # 81 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  106
Joined  2005-09-30

So…the most incompetent administration in galactic history brought off the trickiest hoax in history, fooling everyone in the world but a few guys who got on the web?

Give me a break!

Here are two excellent sites, debunking all the 9/11 inside-job fantasies:
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/index.htm

 Signature 

Perry Logan
PROBLEM, REACTION, DELUSION
http://perrylogan.org/

Profile
 
Posted: 06 June 2006 03:58 PM   [ # 82 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2006-06-06

Nice smile. Apparently you haven’t read either those “debunking” websites, or taken a look at the questions left unanswered- the link to the 9/11 Family Steering Committee’s website is . The trail of evidence is a mile wide, they did an incredibly incompetent job in pulling off both 9/11 and the coverup. Without the complicity of the media and those who are interested in acting as their own gatekeeper, the Bush regime would have fallen apart already. 42% of Americans think there’s been a coverup of information that contradicts the official story. Did you know the 9/11 Commission ommitted any mention of WTC7? They ommitted any mention despite the repeated questions raised about it by the 9/11 families and other concerned citizens, and despite the fact that FEMA had already released their report on it. Nearly 3 out of 4 of the 52% of Americans who knew a 3rd building, a 47 story steel-framed skyscraper collapsed completely on 9/11, said that should’ve been investigated as well. You assume/hope there’s nothing to see, that a cabal of psychopathic mass-murderers could never rise to power in the US, so you’ve never looked at the information contradicting the official BS, just sought out stuff that supports your preconceptions- like a woman in denial about her husband molesting their daughter. Common phenomena. Good thing for our country that so many Americans are honest, patriotic and demanding accountability.911independentcommission.org

 Signature 

Zogby Poll Finds Over 70 Million Voting Age Americans Support New 9/11 Investigation
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060522022041421

Profile
 
Posted: 06 June 2006 04:50 PM   [ # 83 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Loose Nuke - 06 June 2006 07:58 PM

42% of Americans think there’s been a coverup of information that contradicts the official story. . .Nearly 3 out of 4 of the 52% of Americans who knew a 3rd building, a 47 story steel-framed skyscraper collapsed completely on 9/11, said that should’ve been investigated as well.

Did you know that 100% of Americans don’t believe that there was a conspiracy?  It’s true.  I conducted a survey, and those were the results.

All these statistics you keep throwing at us really don’t mean anything.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 06 June 2006 05:09 PM   [ # 84 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2006-06-06

You’re serious? You polled yourself? The fact that less than 50% of Americans were willing to stand behind the official story is significant- 30% of Republicans wouldn’t say they believe the Commission.

Afraid to look at the unanswered questions, are you? http://www.911independentcommission.org . These were to be the “roadmap” for the Commission. These are questions that any normal person and police investigation ask. Why couldn’t the Commission give answers to 70% of these questions? What are they hiding?

 Signature 

Zogby Poll Finds Over 70 Million Voting Age Americans Support New 9/11 Investigation
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060522022041421

Profile
 
Posted: 06 June 2006 05:21 PM   [ # 85 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  26052
Joined  2004-11-08
Loose Nuke - 06 June 2006 09:09 PM

You’re serious? You polled yourself? The fact that less than 50% of Americans were willing to stand behind the official story is significant- 30% of Republicans wouldn’t say they believe the Commission.

Afraid to look at the unanswered questions, are you? http://www.911independentcommission.org. These were to be the “roadmap” for the Commission. These are questions that any normal person and police investigation ask. Why couldn’t the Commission give answers to 70% of these questions? What are they hiding?

I think the point he’s trying to make is - What American’s?  Who was polled (demographics)?  How many people are we talking about?  What were the questions and allowed responses?  What were the responses?  When was this poll conducted? 

Without this information your statistics are meaningless.  Either provide this information, stop citing these ‘statistics’, or accept ridicule for continuing to provide irrelevant data.

 Signature 

Heaven must be really boring, if you think about it logically.
All the angels must be snoring.  Who could stand perfection for eternity?

Not me. - George Hrab

Profile
 
Posted: 06 June 2006 05:21 PM   [ # 86 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Loose Nuke - 06 June 2006 09:09 PM

You’re serious? You polled yourself? The fact that less than 50% of Americans were willing to stand behind the official story is significant- 30% of Republicans wouldn’t say they believe the Commission.

All that your statistics prove is that, at best, less than 50% of those polled are “willing to stand behind the official story”.  As I said, I polled a number of Americans, and I found that 100% don’t believe that there was a government conspiracy.  What does that prove?  Also, what were the questions asked by the poll givers? It’s easy enough to manipulate the questions so that a desired trend appears.  I could go into a hospital for quadriplegics and say, “Everybody who prefers Coke to Pepsi, raise your hand!”, and then report that 100% of those surveyed prefer Pepsi.

Afraid to look at the unanswered questions, are you? http://www.911independentcommission.org. These were to be the “roadmap” for the Commission. These are questions that any normal person and police investigation ask. Why couldn’t the Commission give answers to 70% of these questions? What are they hiding?

Errrrr. . .“Page Can Not Be Displayed”.  That may be why the Commission couldn’t answer those questions. . .

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 06 June 2006 05:23 PM   [ # 87 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  26052
Joined  2004-11-08

Oh, and I fixed the URL in his orginal post.  You’re not allowed to tack on dangling periods at the end of a URL, even if it’s the end of a sentence.

 Signature 

Heaven must be really boring, if you think about it logically.
All the angels must be snoring.  Who could stand perfection for eternity?

Not me. - George Hrab

Profile
 
Posted: 06 June 2006 05:28 PM   [ # 88 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2006-06-06

“As you should damn well know, the big electronic voting machine companies are run by wingnuts.  The Diebold machines are designed for the specific purpose of being hacked.”

This statement is from perrylogan.org; if you can believe a conspiracy this massive exists, that the MSM is helping to coverup, what’s stopping you from critically examining the holes and lies that support the official 9/11 story?

Timeline made exlusively from mainstream sources. Type “alive hijackers” into the search bar- the nutjobs at the BBC, Wash Post, LA Times, ABC and a dozen or so other reported these and have never retracted them. The 9/11 Commission Report names the same 19, uses the same photos of people who were verified alive by agencies whose reputation is on the line. Yet, now, no MSM is discussing this anymore- just like they didn’t ask any questions after the 04 election results and the exit polls were wrong in a major way- though they almost never are when there isn’t fraud. Dick Morris stated that as evidence that the “liberal” coporate-owned media were trying to steal the election.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

 Signature 

Zogby Poll Finds Over 70 Million Voting Age Americans Support New 9/11 Investigation
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060522022041421

Profile
 
Posted: 06 June 2006 05:31 PM   [ # 89 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2006-06-06

http://www.zogby.com/features/features.dbm?ID=231

Link to Zogby’s poll

 Signature 

Zogby Poll Finds Over 70 Million Voting Age Americans Support New 9/11 Investigation
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060522022041421

Profile
 
Posted: 06 June 2006 05:37 PM   [ # 90 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Loose Nuke - 06 June 2006 09:09 PM

Afraid to look at the unanswered questions, are you? http://www.911independentcommission.org . These were to be the “roadmap” for the Commission. These are questions that any normal person and police investigation ask. Why couldn’t the Commission give answers to 70% of these questions? What are they hiding?

Ummm. . .nowhere on that site can I see anything saying that 70% of those questions couldn’t be answered or weren’t answered by the Commission.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 06 June 2006 05:40 PM   [ # 91 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Loose Nuke - 06 June 2006 09:28 PM

“As you should damn well know, the big electronic voting machine companies are run by wingnuts.  The Diebold machines are designed for the specific purpose of being hacked.”

This statement is from perrylogan.org; if you can believe a conspiracy this massive exists, that the MSM is helping to coverup, what’s stopping you from critically examining the holes and lies that support the official 9/11 story?

Timeline made exlusively from mainstream sources. Type “alive hijackers” into the search bar- the nutjobs at the BBC, Wash Post, LA Times, ABC and a dozen or so other reported these and have never retracted them. The 9/11 Commission Report names the same 19, uses the same photos of people who were verified alive by agencies whose reputation is on the line. Yet, now, no MSM is discussing this anymore- just like they didn’t ask any questions after the 04 election results and the exit polls were wrong in a major way- though they almost never are when there isn’t fraud. Dick Morris stated that as evidence that the “liberal” coporate-owned media were trying to steal the election.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Sorry, but that post didn’t really make much sense at all, nor do I see how it really has anything to do with what were were talking about.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 06 June 2006 05:48 PM   [ # 92 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Loose Nuke - 06 June 2006 09:31 PM

http://www.zogby.com/features/features.dbm?ID=231

Link to Zogby’s poll

Yes, that gives a little information about the poll.  It still doesn’t mean anything, though.  Also, notice that according to the poll, there are more Americans who don’t think that there is a government cover-up than there are Americans who do.  Also, more Americans think the attacks were thoroughly investigated than don’t.  The one little statistic that you keep pulling out of there is just saying that many Americans feel that there are still unanswered questions.  Not that they don’t trust the Commission reports.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 06 June 2006 06:27 PM   [ # 93 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2006-06-06

Thanks for the questions.

1) Check the “unanswered questions” section of http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html . 400 or so questions- the 70% figure comes from the activists who were monitoring the Commission who compared its final report to the original questions proposed. If you think the Commission couldn’t possibly have ignored so many questions, or that the media wouldn’t let them get away with it, check it out- as the Report for some reason doesn’t have an index, you can use the searchable one online at http://www.vivisimo.com . The Commission never would’ve happened w/o the persistent efforts of 9/11 victim’s family members- it took 14 months to form, was given only a few million dollars, later raised to 14 or so million, (Clinton’s blowjob got 70mil) the Executive Director was Bush insider Phillip Zelikow- he actually had to testify before his own Commission!, every Commission member had conflicts of interest- except the one who dropped out, Cleland, who called it a coverup, and half the staff did as well. Zelikow controlled what questions were asked and what evidence was looked at.
115 ommissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission Report
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404

2) “Sorry, but that post didn

 Signature 

Zogby Poll Finds Over 70 Million Voting Age Americans Support New 9/11 Investigation
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060522022041421

Profile
 
Posted: 06 June 2006 06:38 PM   [ # 94 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2006-06-06

Also about the poll- 43% unaware a 3rd building had collapsed, but almost 3 out of 4 of those who knew said it should’ve been investigated- obviously, as more people become aware of this, the number of people calling for a new investigation is going to increase, easily to 70%. Do you think it should’ve been investigated and covered in the Commission’s report? They didn’t even mention WTC 7. FEMA’s report said the diesel tanks in the basement probably caught fire and brought it down, but they also said that theory had “only a low probability of occurrence”. So why did the Commission omit it?

A 47 story steel-framed skyscraper collapsed completely. No steel-framed buildings have collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11, even those who had fires that burned much hotter and longer- 24 hours in the case of a building in Madrid- http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6150

Dr. Steven Jones’ paper
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

How’d molten metal get in the basement? The government’s reports admit the jet fuel fires weren’t hot enough to melt metal.

 Signature 

Zogby Poll Finds Over 70 Million Voting Age Americans Support New 9/11 Investigation
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060522022041421

Profile
 
Posted: 06 June 2006 07:21 PM   [ # 95 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Loose Nuke - 06 June 2006 10:27 PM

1) Check the “unanswered questions” section of http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html . 400 or so questions- the 70% figure comes from the activists who were monitoring the Commission who compared its final report to the original questions proposed. If you think the Commission couldn’t possibly have ignored so many questions, or that the media wouldn’t let them get away with it, check it out- as the Report for some reason doesn’t have an index, you can use the searchable one online at http://www.vivisimo.com . The Commission never would’ve happened w/o the persistent efforts of 9/11 victim’s family members- it took 14 months to form, was given only a few million dollars, later raised to 14 or so million, (Clinton’s blowjob got 70mil) the Executive Director was Bush insider Phillip Zelikow- he actually had to testify before his own Commission!, every Commission member had conflicts of interest- except the one who dropped out, Cleland, who called it a coverup, and half the staff did as well. Zelikow controlled what questions were asked and what evidence was looked at.
115 ommissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission Report
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404

Hmm. . .on that “Unanswered Questions” page, it doesn’t say that the Commission didn’t answer those questions listed.  I took it to mean that those were questions that the people asked the Commission, since they didn’t have answers to them.  You’d think that if the FSC really had most of its questions ignored, it would have made a fuss.  But they seem fairly happy about most of the results, with one woman only saying that a few of the answers they received seem to have not had enough factual support.  They mentioned not having some questions answered only once in passing, and don’t seem to be raising any fuss at all about it.  After all, this is reality:  not every question can be fully answered.  They seem to have moved on to other things instead.  It’s other people who are claiming that there are problems with the Commission’s answers to the FSC’s questions.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 06 June 2006 07:53 PM   [ # 96 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Loose Nuke - 06 June 2006 10:38 PM

Also about the poll- 43% unaware a 3rd building had collapsed, but almost 3 out of 4 of those who knew said it should’ve been investigated- obviously, as more people become aware of this, the number of people calling for a new investigation is going to increase, easily to 70%. Do you think it should’ve been investigated and covered in the Commission’s report? They didn’t even mention WTC 7. FEMA’s report said the diesel tanks in the basement probably caught fire and brought it down, but they also said that theory had “only a low probability of occurrence”. So why did the Commission omit it?

Probably because they didn’t feel that they needed to.  Why ask me?  Try contacting somebody who has something to do with the Commission and ask them?

A 47 story steel-framed skyscraper collapsed completely. No steel-framed buildings have collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11, even those who had fires that burned much hotter and longer- 24 hours in the case of a building in Madrid- http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6150

But none of those other burning buildings were the World Trade Center.  Before the Wright brothers’ airplanes, no other heavier-than-air craft were very successful; does this mean that the Wright brothers’ couldn’t have been successful, either?  Or could it be that their airplanes had a different construction than the other ones did, and so had different properties?

Dr. Steven Jones’ paper
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Dr. Jones appears to be an astrophysicist and to specialise in metal-catalyzed fusion, archaeometry, and solar energy.  If we were arguing the collapse of a star into a neutron star, then he’d be a good source.  But what are his qualifications regarding collapsing buildings?

How’d molten metal get in the basement? The government’s reports admit the jet fuel fires weren’t hot enough to melt metal.

Well, there were plenty of reports of fires still burning in the rubble for a long time after the collapse.  A trapped, smouldering fire can easily reach up towards 1000

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 06 June 2006 11:07 PM   [ # 97 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2006-06-06

Excellent questions. If I don’t provide a link for something and you doubt it and would like verification, you can search the relevant key words or ask me- your questions seem sincere.

“Unanswered questions” means “unanswered questions”. The 9/11 Family Steering Committee came together from 12 9/11 family members who wanted accountability for the intelligence and defense failures without which 9/11 couldn’t have succeeded. While the final statement of the group is innocuous, the group disbanded at the end of the hearings. At the “1 year later” hearings held by McKinney, Lori Van Auken said, “One such statement was that 9 /11 was a failure of imagination: a failure of whose imagination? What exactly does that mean? When you have a CIA Director with his hair on fire, a system blinking red, 52 FAA warnings, an August 6, 2001 PDB entitled ``Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States,’’ leads on several 9 /11 hijackers..  warnings from many foreign governments, a Phoenix memo, warning of Islamic extremists taking flying lessons, the arrest of would-be terrorists Zacarias Moussaoui, facts imparted to one agent, Agent Frasca, at the RFU of the FBI, 9 /11 was truly a failure, all right, but I would certainly not call it a failure of imagination”.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query this is the link to the 9/11 search return, so you can check the hearings on Able Danger as well- Atta was identified a year before the attacks and considered a threat- several involved personnel have testifed and the Pentagon has attempted to destroy their careers and block the investigation. This is former FBI Director Louis Freeh’s statement on Able Danger and the 9/11 Commission.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007559

June 24, 2005, thru 9/11 Citizens Watch, the Jersey Girls released this statement:
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=577&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Of the 52% of Americans who knew WTC7 collapsed, 3 out of 4 think it should’ve been investigated- I’m one of them- I find it suspicious that the govt says fire collapsed a building with massive steel columns on the perimeter and 24 even bigger ones in the center, with redundant, asymetric cross trusses, engineered to support loads 5 times greater than it had to bear- collapsed it to the ground into its own footprint at almost free fall speed- without a miracle- or controlled demolition, which would mean 9/11 was an inside job. Watch video of WTC7 collapsing:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7 Look around this site- this is considered one of the most credible on controlled demolition by the biggest activists in the 9/11 Truth Movement. WTC 1 and 2 were just as solid, engineered to withstand multiple 707 crashes. They could’ve made mistakes in the design and construction, but many, many people looked at and signed off on it. Look at the pictures of the construction, and look at the videos of the collapse; what’s turning all that concrete and steel into a rapidly inflating dust cloud? They didn’t collapse, they were disintegrated. Then there’s all the Firemen and WTC employees who reported hearing, seeing and feeling explosions and the effects of explosions.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192
http://911revisited.com/video.html

These things are more tangible than a scholar’s paper, but Dr. Jones has won over many intellectual people who are smart enough to weigh the data and methods he’s used. Check out his paper for pics and video of the molten metal pouring out of the side of one of the towers, if the molten metal found in the wreckage weeks later doesn’t make you suspicious.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

In my own opinioin, and that of a growing number of Americans who review what’s been told and not told about 9/11, there is an overwhelming prima facie case for a new investigation. And considering they lied and said “no one could’ve imagined” and there were “no specific warnings”, when it has since come out that there were lots of very specific warnings and clues building into a “summer of threat”- the word was all over the middle eastern community in NYC- 2 gradeschool boys told their classes the towers were coming down a week before the attacks. Then the air defense failures coincidentally happened on a day with numerous war games taking up resources and confusing the events, at least one of which had a scenario of hijacked planes crashing into the WTC and the Pentagon, etc. etc.- there is really no chance that it’s not an inside job. This means we are in the midst of a Constitutional crisis; the Republic has been hijacked and the powers of government are in the hands of mass murderers and Congress and the Media are complicit in covering it up. People have talked already, like former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, the most gagged person in American history, who has said the American people have not heard who the real culprit is behind 9/11.  Her allegations were confirmed by the FBI’s IG and the Joint Intel Committee investigation of 9/11, but she’s only a footnote in the Report; why did the Commission omit her testimony? In regards to Able Danger, they’ve said “it didn’t fit with the story we wanted to tell”.

THE TOP 40 REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

115 ommissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission Report
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404

Complete 9/11 Timeline- Mainstream sources, only.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

 Signature 

Zogby Poll Finds Over 70 Million Voting Age Americans Support New 9/11 Investigation
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060522022041421

Profile
 
Posted: 10 June 2006 09:50 PM   [ # 98 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2006-06-10

I wish that I had the time to research the details of these events without having to rely on indirect sources such as commision reports, experts, journalists, and conveyors and purveyors of these sources, such as those whose debates rage on sites such as this one.  I think that the best way for me to REALLY know what is going on “out there” is to be “in on it”.  There is simply no other ironclad way.  I would either have to be directly privy to the going-ons of those involved in such a way as to be effectively the same as them for purposes of what I know (like a mole would be), or I would have to actually be involved (perhaps with a mole looking over my shoulder).  Without recourse to either of these privileged sources of information, I must struggle to analyze and synthesize a wide array of information that must have gone through myriad distortions before reaching my experience, regardless of most interpretations I might take of it, many of which contain a sort of “distortion corrective” as part of their modus analyticus, if you will.

But let me say this: there tends to be a rampant disregard for epistemological limits on both sides of the issue.  There is also a disregard for decency, tact, dignity, rhetoric (in its proper sense), and an honest commitment to the truth.  Or to put it roughly in the local dialect, “None of you losers actually knows what the fuck you are talking about, and are too stupid to actually realize it, ever.”  But then again, if I actually said that and meant it, that would be mean.  It would be like some who say entire swaths of people they don’t know have 80 I.Q.s.  Alas, there can be no real parley, dialogue, exchange, mutual assistance and correction, or figuring out of anything with this kind of low-grade wrath-spewing.  It is like apes slinging their fecal matter at something their primitive psyches cannot withstand an exposure to.  Please.

I have some, if I may say so, brilliant approaches to the problems that even a brilliant mind would face (and would be capable of acknowledging it must face) in trying to interpret these and other world events, to include the events that transpire in the massive majority of peoples heads, as well as the special few who have “figured it out.”  I’m not to sure I would field them here.  I must complement the moderation on this site, however.  It seems that maturity and intelligence do roughly correlate with the number of little green squares under a picture.

Profile
 
Posted: 12 June 2006 03:53 AM   [ # 99 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05
Theorist - 11 June 2006 01:50 AM

I must complement the moderation on this site, however.  It seems that maturity and intelligence do roughly correlate with the number of little green squares under a picture.

Would it be too churlish of me to point out that you yourself only have the one?
😊

Profile
 
Posted: 12 June 2006 05:16 AM   [ # 100 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2065
Joined  2005-12-05

I’m not a big fan of polls…..., but what did some of the other polls well known polling agencies conclude? 

I wasn’t impressed with these FAQs from the Zogby site.  A bit glib.

Why don’t you ever call me or my friends? None of my friends, or those in my circle agree with the polls!
JZ: “Phone numbers are chosen purely by random, ensuring that every household in the US (or wherever we are polling) have as much chance of being selected as any other. With tens of millions of adults in the US, it is still rather easy to be missed - but stay in there and maybe stay home more often. You probably have more of a chance of being called than having a visit by Ed McMahon.”


How can polls be so accurate when you only ask such a small number of people?

JZ: “It’s pure probability and statistics. The same theory is involved as when you take a blood test and the clinician draws only a small sample rather than draining all the blood out of your body.”

I read a lot of polls and yours is so different from the others - what makes your answers so different (and accurate)?

JZ: “We poll only likely voters who are different from just all adults. In addition, we poll all day long - 9am to 9pm local time (to the region we’re calling). Finally, we apply weighting for party identification to ensure that there is no built-in Democratic bias in our sampling.”   (What the hell is that supposed to mean?  No Democratic bias?  Why include that line?)

 Signature 

Space…..it seems to go on and on forever, but then you get to the end and the gorrilla starts throwing barrels at you. - Phlip J. Fry

Profile
 
Posted: 12 June 2006 08:53 AM   [ # 101 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1313
Joined  2006-02-05

Re:  Polls

Polls can help someone determine how the public in general feels about a certain issue or topic, such as whether we prefer pulp in our orange juice, or if we think Mick Jagger should call it a day, and be pretty darned accurate, within their given margins of error.  They are statistically valid when properly conducted.

However, polling the public on an issue such as, ‘Were the World Trade Centers a target of a conspiracy by some unknown force?’ one may learn how the public feels about the issue, but the public’s feelings certainly have no bearing on the reality of the situation.

In other words, the results of a poll regarding a conspiracy are meaningless if applied to whether or not the conspiracy is a reality.  The poll only has meaning in regards to how the public perceives same.  And what is the public using as a basis for its feelings?  A Michael Moore movie?  A book by Ann Coulter?  An internet posting by Dan Jr.?

Quoting a poll as a method to legitimize your own point of view is meaningless.

Dan the ‘Oh So Brilliant’ Analyst

Profile
 
Posted: 12 June 2006 12:02 PM   [ # 102 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8167
Joined  2005-02-06
Loose Nuke - 06 June 2006 10:27 PM

3) You’re right, it’s just a poll. However, this is America, it’s supposed to be government representative of the public will, so public opinion counts for something; if people feel the truth has not been told, and only 48% said the truth was told- 42% said coverup, 8% unsure, then both the official 9/11 story and this government are lacking in legitimacy.

...or rather, it might indicate that 52% of Americans simply do not have the necessary knowledge and/or intelligence to decide on such questions. Whether something is “true” or not is not decided by democratics, you know. Even when an uneducated 52% of the populace thinks otherwise, the “official 9/11 story could be (and probably is) completely legitimate. After all, what does the average American know about engineering, physics, and intelligence gathering? Very little.

 Signature 

———
The Kruger-Dunning effect is rampant on internet fora.
J. Kruger & D. Dunning (1999), Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 77, 1121-1134

Profile
 
Posted: 12 June 2006 07:34 PM   [ # 103 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2006-06-10

Well, I set myself up for that one.  Just goes to show that there are plenty of ways that information produces ironies upon being “articulated”.  A bit of recursion there.  It’s more important as a form of bait, to see who needs to pounce on it the most and to draw out their venom, so I can gain more information than I lose.  What the heck, I’ll admit it was intentional, since you were so wry about your seizing upon it.  I was actually curious as to whether a certain “someone” would go after it, and how viciously in that case.  Didn’t expect the mild reaction.  The restraint is admirable.  The “certain someone” passed up on it.  Which may or may not in itself present information of a certain sort.  Yes, I am very interested in “information.”  So were Sun Tsu and Boyle, and Duke Wen.  We all are, of course, but not usually qua information.

Profile
 
Posted: 12 June 2006 07:51 PM   [ # 104 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2006-06-10

I’m suprised there hasn’t been the simple solution put forward that the liklihood that certain “plot grids” like “Democrats vs. Republicans” are staged scripts, psuedo-conspiracy theories, designed to make people think that they’ve “thought deeply” about their daily rag, but within acceptable bounds of “reality”.  It’s too easy to be taken in by that sort of foul bait.  It blatantly insults the intelligence.  As if.  Let’s see, what are the chances that the ultra-rich have the same interests and know each other, and have the means to ensure mutually beneficial arrangements in secret.  Oh, I don’t know, good?  There are no real political parties, they are in fact smokescreens.  What passes for “corruption” is, in fact, a smokescreen.  It is corruption “lite” compared with the magnitude of actual corruption.  At least, this is one solid interpretation, and I feel it is far more stable in its correlation to human nature as we know it and the tendencies it exhibits in groups, especially elite and powerful groups.  But if it helps keep that “warm-fuzzy” alive, that feeling that helps keep you brain going and your tail wagging, go ahead and just assume that the newspapers, which present filtered and distorted information within finite frameworks of presentation packaged in rhetoric that has someones interests at heart (not yours), but is it likely?  I’m not sure that you have to have dramatic fantasies about lizards ala Icke in order to analyze a bit further than the “Democrats” (arrrrr) vs. “Republicans” (grrrrr) conflict script.  Icke has some useful notions aside from lizardry, such as the “opposames” concept.  Its really simple.  Just watch some WWF, or whatever it is they call it nowadays.  While doing so, take a good look at the audience.  Now shift on over to political rallies, debates, demonstrations, riots, etc.  Draw the inductive inference.

Profile
 
Posted: 12 June 2006 11:54 PM   [ # 105 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Theorist - 11 June 2006 01:50 AM

I wish that I had the time to research the details of these events without having to rely on indirect sources such as commision reports, experts, journalists, and conveyors and purveyors of these sources, such as those whose debates rage on sites such as this one.  I think that the best way for me to REALLY know what is going on “out there” is to be “in on it”.  There is simply no other ironclad way.  I would either have to be directly privy to the going-ons of those involved in such a way as to be effectively the same as them for purposes of what I know (like a mole would be), or I would have to actually be involved (perhaps with a mole looking over my shoulder).  Without recourse to either of these privileged sources of information, I must struggle to analyze and synthesize a wide array of information that must have gone through myriad distortions before reaching my experience, regardless of most interpretations I might take of it, many of which contain a sort of “distortion corrective” as part of their modus analyticus, if you will.

Yes, we can’t know first-hand what happened there.  Just like we can’t know first-hand most things in life.  Even for a person who was there on scene, there was too much going on.  We can, however, find out much second-hand.  By looking at the aftermath of events, we can often get a good idea of what did occur, as well as how to keep it from happening again.  Which is why we must put our faith in the findings of various experts, in the reports of various institutions and organisations, and in our own perception of what evidence is given.  That is what this whole debate here has been about:  which of these experts and reports and bits of evidence are valid?

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 13 June 2006 12:19 AM   [ # 106 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Bebelicious - 12 June 2006 09:16 AM

Why don’t you ever call me or my friends? None of my friends, or those in my circle agree with the polls!
JZ: “Phone numbers are chosen purely by random, ensuring that every household in the US (or wherever we are polling) have as much chance of being selected as any other. With tens of millions of adults in the US, it is still rather easy to be missed - but stay in there and maybe stay home more often. You probably have more of a chance of being called than having a visit by Ed McMahon.”

Random doesn’t mean that it has the most varied polling population, it just means that they didn’t have any set pattern in selecting who they polled.  You tend to get random clusters of various traits or beliefs that often have no relation to the actual overall trend.  If you polled 200 people in the US on what their ethnic background was, a random selection could quite possibly result in the polling of 140 people of Polynesian descent.  Then you’ll have a poll showing that 70% of Americans are descended from Polynesians.  And this sort of thing gets even worse the more topics you poll each person on.

The only sure way to get the most varied polling population is to go through and compare possible candidates.  This, of course, leads to the problem of the people conducting the poll choosing (consciously or not) candidates who will tend to bias the poll results one way or another.

The larger the percentage of the population you poll, of course, the more accurate the poll’s results will be.  Even if you poll 50%, though, you can still have a major error.  Really, unless you poll just about the entire population, you’re not guaranteed to get results that have any resemblance to reality.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 13 June 2006 12:24 AM   [ # 107 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Theorist - 12 June 2006 11:51 PM

I’m suprised there hasn’t been the simple solution put forward that the liklihood that certain “plot grids” like “Democrats vs. Republicans” are staged scripts, psuedo-conspiracy theories, designed to make people think that they’ve “thought deeply” about their daily rag, but within acceptable bounds of “reality”.  It’s too easy to be taken in by that sort of foul bait.  It blatantly insults the intelligence.  As if.  Let’s see, what are the chances that the ultra-rich have the same interests and know each other, and have the means to ensure mutually beneficial arrangements in secret.  Oh, I don’t know, good?  There are no real political parties, they are in fact smokescreens.  What passes for “corruption” is, in fact, a smokescreen.  It is corruption “lite” compared with the magnitude of actual corruption.  At least, this is one solid interpretation, and I feel it is far more stable in its correlation to human nature as we know it and the tendencies it exhibits in groups, especially elite and powerful groups.  But if it helps keep that “warm-fuzzy” alive, that feeling that helps keep you brain going and your tail wagging, go ahead and just assume that the newspapers, which present filtered and distorted information within finite frameworks of presentation packaged in rhetoric that has someones interests at heart (not yours), but is it likely?  I’m not sure that you have to have dramatic fantasies about lizards ala Icke in order to analyze a bit further than the “Democrats” (arrrrr) vs. “Republicans” (grrrrr) conflict script.  Icke has some useful notions aside from lizardry, such as the “opposames” concept.  Its really simple.  Just watch some WWF, or whatever it is they call it nowadays.  While doing so, take a good look at the audience.  Now shift on over to political rallies, debates, demonstrations, riots, etc.  Draw the inductive inference.

That assumes that all the rich and powerful do get along, though, and have the same agenda.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 13 June 2006 09:15 AM   [ # 108 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1313
Joined  2006-02-05

Re:  Accipiter above

The ‘rich and powerful’ are as busy trying to ace-out one another as they are trying to clean out the rest of us.  They operate on one principle (as do many people):  “What’s mine is mine, and what is yours is going to be.”  Like predators on the savannah in Africa, they seek out the easiest target.  (Example:  Tort lawyers going after the now-vulnerable tobacco industry, making literally Billions in fees.)

But gee, you know, from the perspective of history, us common folks have never had it better.  We eat better food than kings of just 100 years ago, (fresh produce in large variety, lots of meat and protein sources, unending treats, etc); mothers survive childbirth regularly now, we live in dry comfortable living quarters with computers and color TV’s and refrigerators, the likelihood of roving gangs of thugs invading our village and looting us and raping our women-folk are pretty darned slender, medical care, even minimal medical care, is better now than ever before, we are given the opportunity to educate ourselves at public expense, and lots of other benefits.

Not that life is perfect, it never will be, even for the ‘rich and powerful’.  (If their lives were perfect, how come they keep needing more?)

But on the overall, if there is a conspiracy to keep us ‘down’, the conspirators aren’t very good at it, you know?

Dan, Who sees the cup as more than half-full.

Profile
 
Posted: 07 November 2006 01:03 PM   [ # 109 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2006-11-07

[The answer is no they cannot there was a program to place a system calld Hijack Home run that allowed the pilot to hit a hijack button and shunt contol to FAA or NORAD so they could redirect and remotly land the plane. This was a propsal back in 1980 it was found out of the 600 test planes 15 had fatal accidents from errors in the system. The system was scrapped and replaced with an emergancy code transponder.

Profile
 
{pagination_links}
0 of {total_pages}