911 Pentagon Video Released

[Highflyer_GP]

Forget it we're arguing over something childish and it's going to go around in circles. It was only a suggestion, and it's been made into a big deal, so I say rather let the thread starter decide on it Truce?

 

[ignacio]

Forget it we're arguing over something childish and it's going to go around in circles. It was only a suggestion, and it's been made into a big deal, so I say rather let the thread starter decide on it Truce?

Truce Until I hear the next theory!

 

[mooK]

Aaw, come on guys! It was fun!

 

[kilo39]

Aaw, come on guys! It was fun!

Fun - maybe for you mooK?! Another drone perhaps?

Okay - some review is in order. The naysayers on this thread - strident they are! Happily call people kooks, and insane. To the extent that those kooks point to the 'supposed' evidence of the 'sane' people (the official reports) - but you still get claims of kooks. It takes repeated posting of the same information for them finally to realise they are being fed the supposedly 'official' version - (the official version is less substantive than the conspiracists version) - but they swear by it. Only after having their noses rubbed in it do they finally accede "oh yeah, clueless to the extreme." The debunkers finally turn around and accede "yes - the officials actually have no clue." One could ask - what is the value of arguing with people like this? Drones - to the extreme? Incapable of creative thought, incapable of using their own eyes and their own assessment - their own god given creative brains... but no - unless it has a stamp its not worth it. Then I finally show them their stamp is worth sh#t - but to them - even now that they accede the point (that the officials, and the debunkers) don't have a clue - they are still so inept to continue calling people kooks. Stupid people - basically undeserving of the title "free thinking human being."

 

[mooK]

Yay, more fun!

 

[kilo39]

Yay, more fun!

@ mooK !

 

[Nom Chompsky]

I've never heard more rubbish in my life (except in SA). I can find any link that'll debunk any of your claims:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14

The photograph above shows the lawn in front of the damaged building. You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?

Paul: : Yet another leading question ("you'll remember..."), but one looking in the wrong place anyway. At 250 mph, the plane did not stop at the outside of the building. Security camera photos and eyewitness accounts from many credible people, including AP reporter Dave Winslow, agree that the plane completely disappeared into the building. If you’ve seen photos of airline crashes after the fire is out, they often look more like landfill sites than anything recognizable as having been an airplane.

But since the question more literally asks for a photo showing airliner debris on the lawn [Pic 1 ; [ Pic 2

So let's start with a broad question: would U.S. officials be capable of such a foul deed? Capable -- as in able to pull it off and willing to do so. Simply put, the spies and special agents are not good enough, evil enough, or gutsy enough to mount this operation. That conclusion is based partly on, dare I say it, common sense, but also on years spent covering national security matters. (For a book I wrote on the CIA, I interviewed over 100 CIA officials and employees.)

Not good enough: Such a plot -- to execute the simultaneous destruction of the two towers, a piece of the Pentagon, and four airplanes and make it appear as if it all was done by another party -- is far beyond the skill level of U.S. intelligence. It would require dozens (or scores or hundreds) of individuals to attempt such a scheme. They would have to work together, and trust one another not to blow their part or reveal the conspiracy. They would hail from an assortment of agencies (CIA, FBI, INS, Customs, State, FAA, NTSB, DOD, etc.).

Yet anyone with the most basic understanding of how government functions (or does not function) realizes that the various bureaucracies of Washington -- particularly those of the national security "community" -- do not work well together. Even covering up advance knowledge would require an extensive plot. If there truly had been intelligence reports predicting the 9/11 attacks, these reports would have circulated through intelligence and policymaking circles before the folks at the top decided to smother them for geopolitical gain. That would make for a unwieldy conspiracy of silence. And in either scenario -- planning the attacks or permitting them to occur -- everyone who participated in the conspiracy would have to be freakin' sure that all the other plotters would stay quiet.

Not evil enough. This is as foul as it gets -- to kill thousands of Americans, including Pentagon employees, to help out oil companies. (The sacrificial lambs could have included White House staff or members of Congress, had the fourth plane not crashed in Pennsylvania.) This is a Hollywood-level of dastardliness, James Bond (or Dr. Evil) material.

http://www.alternet.org/story/12536/

Oh and go read through these links will you since I can also play the links game (like LG does): http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm

PS: Also you haven't said our US could have no leak about their plans.

 

[kilo39]

Yet another leading question ("you'll remember..."), but one looking in the wrong place anyway. At 250 mph, the plane did not stop at the outside of the building. Security camera photos and eyewitness accounts from many credible people, including AP reporter Dave Winslow, agree that the plane completely disappeared into the building. If you’ve seen photos of airline crashes after the fire is out, they often look more like landfill sites than anything recognizable as having been an airplane.

What I love about this -note the vacuum: a plane slides along the ground - hits a wall - but it 'disappeared' into the building. Pleeaze. Use your god-given imagination and thought: a soon as metal touches ground with any momentum it leaves damage, bits - grinding parts - deep scours... but no - according to you the plane 'disappeared' into the building without leaving a trace. This is not far from the 'liquification' story - read my previous posts.

So let's start with a broad question: would U.S. officials be capable of such a foul deed? Capable -- as in able to pull it off and willing to do so. Simply put, the spies and special agents are not good enough, evil enough, or gutsy enough to mount this operation. That conclusion is based partly on, dare I say it, common sense, but also on years spent covering national security matters. (For a book I wrote on the CIA, I interviewed over 100 CIA officials and employees.)

I wish people who make the claim of 'common sense' would actually use their own!

Don't you get it? America killed a president - they don't know who did it... they try tell us it was Lee Harvey Oswald - the magic bullet theory. If you cannot see the limitations of this I seriously wonder as to the rest of coherant thought.

At this time I am not arguing the ins and outs of the ineptness. Fact: america killed a president - now please tell me it was Lee Harvey. (Or - equally -that the conspiracists don't have a "strong" case.)

/edit/and your photos at 'pic1' and 'pic2' - (2 not found) - exactly what I mean - what a joke. One little piece of cowl - from a jet weighing 300 000 pounds. Oh, right!!! Disappeared into the building I tell you - without leaving a trace besides one little old cowl. Common sense? I think not.

 

[Prometheus]

HUh didn't you see my quotes? Steel loses 50% strength at 593 Degrees Celcius.

Doesn't explain why the structures below the fires wasn't able to hold the weight of the structures above. Even if one structure is compromised a whole building shouldn't just collapsed straight down appearing to even explode. I'm not a scientist, but it seems more likely that the compromised structures would have slid down the sides of the building. Going strait down is just too neat for me. Why did they evacuate whole block then? The were expecting it to cause more damage to other buildings than it did.

 

[ignacio]

Fun - maybe for you mooK?! Another drone perhaps?

Okay - some review is in order. The naysayers on this thread - strident they are! Happily call people kooks, and insane. To the extent that those kooks point to the 'supposed' evidence of the 'sane' people (the official reports) - but you still get claims of kooks. It takes repeated posting of the same information for them finally to realise they are being fed the supposedly 'official' version - (the official version is less substantive than the conspiracists version) - but they swear by it. Only after having their noses rubbed in it do they finally accede "oh yeah, clueless to the extreme." The debunkers finally turn around and accede "yes - the officials actually have no clue." One could ask - what is the value of arguing with people like this? Drones - to the extreme? Incapable of creative thought, incapable of using their own eyes and their own assessment - their own god given creative brains... but no - unless it has a stamp its not worth it. Then I finally show them their stamp is worth sh#t - but to them - even now that they accede the point (that the officials, and the debunkers) don't have a clue - they are still so inept to continue calling people kooks. Stupid people - basically undeserving of the title "free thinking human being."

WTF? Last thing I remember from you before you ran away was that you posted a link in which the scientists contributed NOTHING to your conspiracy theory - then when challenged on this, I heard no reply. So again:

does the link you provided add any credence at all to your nuclear weapon theory, without your added conjecture and speculation? Yes or no?

So - if you want me to debunk you systematically, then present your case systematically - one useless idea/link at a time (I see through your method of throwing everything from JFK, nukes, WPI scientists into one post in the hope that the sheer magnitude of garbage will overwhelm any responder)..

So far after that WPI link I think the score is: sane people 1, conspiracy kooks 0.

Care to play some more?

 

[ignacio]

Doesn't explain why the structures below the fires wasn't able to hold the weight of the structures above. Even if one structure is compromised a whole building shouldn't just collapsed straight down appearing to even explode. I'm not a scientist, but it seems more likely that the compromised structures would have slid down the sides of the building. Going strait down is just too neat for me. Why did they evacuate whole block then? The were expecting it to cause more damage to other buildings than it did.

From MIT Civil Engineering dept .... who are scientists:

three-step failure mechanism that occurred at different scales of the two WTC towers.
1. The impact of the plane at one or several floors of the WTC: The building was designed for the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft, and the towers did indeed withstand the impact and the following explosion which may have destroyed one or more floors. This destruction should have locally reduced the resistance of the columns in the core (and eventually also at the perimeter) to buckling. Even so, the resistance was strong enough to carry the loads of the upper floors for approximately one hour.
2. The failure of the impacted floor system: The explosion following the impact may have destroyed some of the thermal insulation around the steel columns. The 60 tons of flaming jet fuel easily raised temperatures to 1,500° F or more. Exposed to such intense and prolonged heat, structural steel loses rigidity and strength. This may have caused a reduction of the buckling force of the connected 2-3 floor structural system. The column-bracing system was subjected to the load of the top floors. After about 60 minutes, local buckling of the columns became inevitable. Compared to a ductile failure, the floor system failed in a brittle way, explosively releasing the energy stored in the system. The tower with the higher load above the impacted level collapsed first, but both towers showed almost the same failure mechanism.
3. Dynamic crash of the remaining structure: The failure of the 2-3 floor system set a 25- to 30-floor mass free-falling onto the 80- to 85-floor structure below. The enormous kinetic energy released by this 2-3-floor downfall was too large to be absorbed by the structure below. The impact of this upper part onto the lower part was surely much higher than the buckling load of the columns below, which to this point may had been largely undamaged, and may have ultimately caused the explosive buckling, floor after floor, of the WTC towers. Similar to a car smashing into a wall, the towers crashed into the ground with an almost free-fall velocity.

 

[Nom Chompsky]

What I love about this -note the vacuum: a plane slides along the ground - hits a wall - but it 'disappeared' into the building. Pleeaze. Use your god-given imagination and thought: a soon as metal touches ground with any momentum it leaves damage, bits - grinding parts - deep scours... but no - according to you the plane 'disappeared' into the building without leaving a trace. This is not far from the 'liquification' story - read my previous posts.

Oh so security camera's and other credible eye witnesses lied? Give me a break. And since nothing like this happened before, all you are saying is purely speculation and not based on any sort of evidence.

At this time I am not arguing the ins and outs of the ineptness. Fact: america killed a president - now please tell me it was Lee Harvey. (Or - equally -that the conspiracists don't have a "strong" case.)

/edit/and your photos at 'pic1' and 'pic2' - (2 not found) - exactly what I mean - what a joke. One little piece of cowl - from a jet weighing 300 000 pounds. Oh, right!!! Disappeared into the building I tell you - without leaving a trace besides one little old cowl. Common sense? I think not.

Not relevant although again I can show you lots of websites debunking nutty conspiracy theorists.

 

[kilo39]

So - if you want me to debunk you systematically, then present your case systematically - one useless idea/link at a time (I see through your method of throwing everything from JFK, nukes, WPI scientists into one post in the hope that the sheer magnitude of garbage will overwhelm any responder)..

So far after that WPI link I think the score is: sane people 1, conspiracy kooks 0.

You know ignacio - you have got nothing to say. You refuse to look at any evidence (even the evidence of our own eyes and coherent brain) - the official story - when I show you the official story is no more 'evidential' that the conspiracists story.

To remind you (once again) - and I note your frantic search for information in the post above - you have nothing to say - unless it is the official version - though that official version is no more compelling than the conspiracists version.

Here is the reminder (and wake up and stop wasting my time - use you brain - not your ability to follow the party line.)

ignacio
So basically - they don't know.... as with other SCIENTISTS and not internet kooks, they have some hypotheses to test....

people 0, conspiracy kooks 1

 

[Prometheus]

OK.... good and finally: WPI may be half-rate, but at least you are quoting an edu and not a .fi

What does the name of a site have to do with anything? Let peoples credentials speak for them for heavens sake.

In your case the game was the man, because, again, unlike the others you added NOTHING - just told me to look at LGs posts and "find the truth". Try to add something worthwhile to the discussion and I will beat you down on that level as well.

HF can't help if you don't understand anything he added. Everyone here debated things that have been debated before and when he points that out he is seen as adding nothing to the thread. So by that logic we should now all be debating the laws of physics to prove that every action has an equal and opposite reaction in order for anything said here to be accounted possible despite that it has already been proven and the information is available if anyone wants to see that proof. HF referred you to points which have already been made. It's not his job to restate it all here because you don't want to go and read it all. If you don't want to read through that which is provided stating that it will take too long then you should not be debating the issue plain and simple.

 

[Highflyer_GP]

It's no use Prometheus, some people seem to take pleasure in being parrots and regurgitating stuff. It's like talking to a brick wall. Having a title behind your name means squat, but it seems ok to believe somebody (who could easily have been bought off) just because they have a PHD and working at MIT. For instance Ivy has a PHD in Engineering, should we all then believe her if she says that communications in SA is the cheapest in the world? Yet if someone else equally qualified with a PHD in Engineering says that she is talking ****, then they are seen as kooks.

Then again if someone is too lazy to take the time to read something, stating that its too long, that's exactly the kind of mentality that governments target. The common people who will take their word for it because they're not willing to make an effort to make sense of things for themselves. It's people like this who deserve to live in dictatorships like Zimbabwe and then not have a right to complain that they're being treated unfairly.

Personally I wouldn't mind if new information has been brought to light here, but it's all the same points that's been stated before. If you're too lazy to read through 15 pages of posts then you're being ignorant and your points shouldn't even be given any attention by anyone. In order for something to be a constructive argument, one has to be willing to listen to the opposition without debunking them as kooks just because they are not in agreement with you. Instead this seems to have turned into a selective argument, where one agrees with a scientist because his theory fits in with yours, but disagrees with another scientist and labelling him a kook because his theory doesn't fit in with yours. That's unconstructive and ignorant to say the least.

But hey I'm not going down this road again, if Ignacio wants to argue about what's already been stated then by all means he's entitled to, as long as it's been noted that he didn't want to read through the other thread because "it was too long and filled with garbage". It was only a suggestion on my part, which was turned down by him because he'd rather argue it again here. And before anybody says anything, no. Prometheus and myself are not siding with each other, we've had more than our fair share of disagreements in other threads. The difference is that we tried to contribute without being ignorant to what's already been stated.

 

[ignacio]

babble, babble, babble, babble,....Here is the reminder (and wake up and stop wasting my time - use you brain - not your ability to follow the party line.)

Quote:
ignacio
So basically - they don't know.... as with other SCIENTISTS and not internet kooks, they have some hypotheses to test....

people 0, conspiracy kooks 1

Your conclusions are hopelessly stupid... if you bother rereading YOUR link you would find:
a. they have some theories that as scientists they would want to test
b. there is no evidence, suggestion, implication, innuendo regarding a conspiracy involving nuclear weapons

You have demonstrated a complete lack of logical capacity (as demonstrated by the "JFK is a conspiracy, so therefore this is a consipracy" line of thought) and now further establish that with your "if scientists don't know exactly how something works to the minutest detail it must therefore mean it is a conpspiracy" line of thought. Here is a hint, dimwit: scientists like to scientifically prove things false or true.... they don't sit around like conspiracy kooks thinking up fantasies when they have realistic candidates to test.

Oh, by the way, that link was from MIT - so no, I am not frantically trying to come up with new experts.... unlike a certain conspiracy kook.

 

[Prometheus]

Paul: : Yet another leading question ("you'll remember..."), but one looking in the wrong place anyway. At 250 mph, the plane did not stop at the outside of the building. Security camera photos and eyewitness accounts from many credible people, including AP reporter Dave Winslow, agree that the plane completely disappeared into the building. If you’ve seen photos of airline crashes after the fire is out, they often look more like landfill sites than anything recognizable as having been an airplane.[/i]

But since the question more literally asks for a photo showing airliner debris on the lawn [Pic 1 ; [ Pic 2

One small pic with a piece of airplane conveniently in the foreground and minimal other wreckage which cannot even be identified as such and one link that doesn't even work

So let's start with a broad question: would U.S. officials be capable of such a foul deed? Capable -- as in able to pull it off and willing to do so. Simply put, the spies and special agents are not good enough, evil enough, or gutsy enough to mount this operation. That conclusion is based partly on, dare I say it, common sense, but also on years spent covering national security matters. (For a book I wrote on the CIA, I interviewed over 100 CIA officials and employees.)

Not good enough: Such a plot -- to execute the simultaneous destruction of the two towers, a piece of the Pentagon, and four airplanes and make it appear as if it all was done by another party -- is far beyond the skill level of U.S. intelligence. It would require dozens (or scores or hundreds) of individuals to attempt such a scheme. They would have to work together, and trust one another not to blow their part or reveal the conspiracy. They would hail from an assortment of agencies (CIA, FBI, INS, Customs, State, FAA, NTSB, DOD, etc.).

Well, in that case they should resign right now. If they are not capable of doing that which they are trained to do then what use are they? And according to the opinion of a... shall I dare to call him a "kook" as many experts have been called here it would have taken dozens and even hundreds of people to accomplish this. This person should have used some of his - as Kilo so rigthtly pointed out - "common sense" as it's impossible for a few terrorists to have pulled this of by his standards. The less people that are involved in something the easier it gets to pull it off. So let me get this strait. It's easier for 3 or 4 terrorists per plane to pull of a hijacking and fly a plane very strategically into an building than for a plane to be replaced during the time it mysteriously vanished from radar with a missile or a fighter jet which can be controlled by a SINGLE person. And then it's still regarded as easier even though some of the terrorists have been certified as "completely inept" in handling any kind of airplane by a qualified expert flight instructor.

Yet anyone with the most basic understanding of how government functions (or does not function) realizes that the various bureaucracies of Washington -- particularly those of the national security "community" -- do not work well together. Even covering up advance knowledge would require an extensive plot. If there truly had been intelligence reports predicting the 9/11 attacks, these reports would have circulated through intelligence and policymaking circles before the folks at the top decided to smother them for geopolitical gain. That would make for a unwieldy conspiracy of silence. And in either scenario -- planning the attacks or permitting them to occur -- everyone who participated in the conspiracy would have to be freakin' sure that all the other plotters would stay quiet.

Again the same expert not knowing anything about the secrets and lies that have been kept very efficiently in the past and then there is even a secret military base in Nevada. No I'm not saying there's aliens there. I'm saying that the information about it which thousands of people are privy to have been kept so secret that no one has been able to prove that there isn't aliens there. If information about a whole base can be kept so secret then why can't they pull of something involving only 4 planes AND keep it quiet.

Not evil enough. This is as foul as it gets -- to kill thousands of Americans, including Pentagon employees, to help out oil companies. (The sacrificial lambs could have included White House staff or members of Congress, had the fourth plane not crashed in Pennsylvania.) This is a Hollywood-level of dastardliness, James Bond (or Dr. Evil) material.

Ah, the Pentagon and the White House. The two most secure buildings in the US. Commercial pilots have been threatened with being shot down for just flying too close diagonally past it despite being miles away from it and we are expected to believe that a airplane hijacked by terrorists can crash into it without being shot down when it is defended against exactly such an attack. Hey maybe they were suppose to shoot down the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania and hit the Pentagon by mistake and now they don't want to admit it.

 

[ignacio]

What does the name of a site have to do with anything? Let peoples credentials speak for them for heavens sake.

Credentials?!... go find that .fi guy's credentials before making such an absurd statement.

HF can't help if you don't understand anything he added. Everyone here debated things that have been debated before and when he points that out he is seen as adding nothing to the thread. So by that logic we should now all be debating the laws of physics to prove that every action has an equal and opposite reaction in order for anything said here to be accounted possible despite that it has already been proven and the information is available if anyone wants to see that proof. HF referred you to points which have already been made. It's not his job to restate it all here because you don't want to go and read it all. If you don't want to read through that which is provided stating that it will take too long then you should not be debating the issue plain and simple.

Sorry, fell asleep reading that... I thought we had already established HF is an idiot and was adding nothing to the thread, apart from commentary - which kinda looks like what you are doing. By your reasoning - and that is a generous characterization - we should not even be having this discussion at all, and LG shouldn't have posted those links to begin with. Why? Because I guarantee all of that is elsewhere in the internet and we can go and find it oursleves and "It's not his job to restate it all here because you don't want to go and read it all. If you don't want to read through that which is provided stating that it will take too long then you should not be debating the issue plain and simple".

Yes, I am discussing points in this thread- not in LGs thread - because that is what I want to do - if that is so offensive to you, go fack yourself.

BTW, do all of you conspiracy kooks have the very girly habit of rolling your eyes? It seems like a crutch of sorts... like if you roll your eyes it somehow proves something was obviously factually correct.... like "of course nuclear weapons took down the WTC"... *rolls eyes*

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Sorry, fell asleep reading that... I thought we had already established HF is an idiot and was adding nothing to the thread, apart from commentary - which kinda looks like what you are doing. By your reasoning - and that is a generous characterization - we should not even be having this discussion at all, and LG shouldn't have posted those links to begin with.

That goes to prove your mentality of not listening to anybody else, except for yourself. When you get over your inflated ego, then add something except basing your entire argument on what somebody from MIT said.

Since we are discussing this again, I will start contributing once I get back from my girlfriends house, and if anybody is going to be labelled a kook based on their argument then don't bother posting unless you can disprove them. So until later, happy wanking over the FEMA report.

 

[kilo39]

Your conclusions are hopelessly stupid... if you bother rereading YOUR link you would find:
a. they have some theories that as scientists they would want to test
b. there is no evidence, suggestion, implication, innuendo regarding a conspiracy involving nuclear weapons

You have demonstrated a complete lack of logical capacity (as demonstrated by the "JFK is a conspiracy, so therefore this is a consipracy" line of thought) and now further establish that with your "if scientists don't know exactly how something works to the minutest detail it must therefore mean it is a conpspiracy" line of thought. Here is a hint, dimwit: scientists like to scientifically prove things false or true.... they don't sit around like conspiracy kooks thinking up fantasies when they have realistic candidates to test.

Oh, by the way, that link was from MIT - so no, I am not frantically trying to come up with new experts.... unlike a certain conspiracy kook.

ignacio - your language, attitude, and choice of speech does little to show your intelligence - but goes plenty to show the lack thereof. You are a rude little dweeb who has contributed nothing to this thread except invective. Your constant crying of the experts. When I show you these experts are no better than any other experts - you deny it. Your experts in the final analysis have no clue (much as yourself) - but you are fond of pointing to them. It takes me to show you - that they are clueless - but you keep on with the taunts - further exposing your ignorance and incoherence.

Note I did not JFK is a conspiracy, so therefore this is a consipracy" line of thought reason as such - this is your assumption. Instead my reasoning was the 'possibility' for a conspiracy - based on evidence in the public domain. Further I note your statement of fact, "is a conspiracy" - so now - clever boy - you tell me - Was JFK a conspiracy or not - in your eyes?

Without the invective and troll language please.