9/11 Inside Job?

[downzy]

For the lols

Dismissing so many things as coincidence is the reason the theory wont go away. It's lazy.

Rumsfeld made a mistake of saying Flight 93 was shot down? I guess it doesn't matter that debris was found 6-8 miles away. I guess it doesn't matter that there were no bodies. Or jet fuel in the soil. Or wreckage. Or witnesses.

How were fighter jets reported around Flight considered incompetence or a mistake? Are you taking the typical short cut?

Oh, just another mistake in saying a missile hit the Pentagon? I guess the wall of the Pentagon also made a mistake of leaving no hole for a plane. I guess when Rumsfeld says there was no plane wreckage that it was just an ordinary mistake too. GTFO.

Osama Bin Laden was named the suspect nearly immediately and by that night, everyone was so sure he had to be the guy. No investigation stated Bin Laden was the suspect for the insider trading. GTFO with that.

Hijackers are alive. I've already linked to a news report showing it to be so. He released a fucking video in 2007. Once again, you stick your head in the sand to say you havent seen something.

Are you too stupid to see the small explosions prior to impact for yourself? Every angle of the second plane show the explosion. The only view of the first plane show an explosion. Head in the sand.

NIST's report has their rate of freefall being 5 meters a second with their formula for measurement. Head in the sand.

Show people where a plane was in the damage prior to the Pentagon roof collapse that is consistent with a plane. You're being lazy and just dismissing away things to brush them away. You aren't even addressing it.

You are completely unaware of what happened with NORAD, I see. For one, NORAD didn't respond to the hijackings because they were nowhere close that day. In any other case of hijackings, there is a response within 10 minutes. Yet on that day, it was a clusterfuck. It was testified by Norman Mineta that while he was meeting with Cheney, someone was reporting the distance of the plane and asked him "if the orders still stand" That puts Cheney as acting in charge of NORAD. That is a breach of the chain of command. Cheney had no business acting in charge of NORAD. NORAD sent fighter jets out over the Atlantic ocean that had them 150 miles away from the Pentagon at the time of the attack. According to those involved, "it was further away then when they took off." There were multiple lies surrounding them covering up their supposed fuck ups.

It's a lie that FEMA was in NY on the night before 9/11? Are you as deep into this as you try to act like you are? You're looking lazy. Tom Kenny, a FEMA team member spoke in a CBS interview with Dan Rather that he was called there the night before. Why? Ask Rudy Giuliani: "... the reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill, it had hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State, from the State Emergency Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack. So that was gonna be the place they were going to have the drill. The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there, within three days, that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from there that the rest of the search and rescue effort was completed."

The above is relative to two things. One thing you called a coincidence(the movement of the meeting) and the other you called a lie(Tom Kenny's claim). Make up your mind, son.

And you so easily try to dismiss the inconsistencies of the Bin Laden confession video. How about the fact that the version released to the public was already translated by the DOD? Or that many people have said the translation was wrong? Once again. You're being lazy.

Drinking IS forbidden by Muslims. That's pretty common knowledge. So is Gambling. It's just another coincidence that tracking the supposed hijackers has them taking trips to Las Vegas too huh? You're trying to dismiss everything too easily. An FBI informant has revealed a lot of their activity and their behavior makes no sense for supposed extremists.

"Nothing wrong with the fuselage." Go look at the belly of a 757, FFS. The plane on 9/11 was the first commercial 757 ever to have that attachment. It was caught by several angles and it was a 3 dimensional attachment, not a shadow. More laziness.

"Nothing to explain:" Bombs. Bombs shouldn't be explained?(I notice you totally ignore the reference of the sounds of bombs going off in videos but address this one LOL)

Nothing to explain about there being no bodies or plane wreckage at a crash site on the day of the worst attack in America? What kind of physics exist in your alternate world?

Nothing to explain about the Pentagon refusing to release videos from cameras showing the supposed 757 hitting the Pentagon? Whats to hide? More laziness by you.

Nothing to explain how a plane evaporates into that wall of the Pentagon that has no hole for a plane? You're really falling behind.

No reason to explain why the tiny amount of info from the black boxes is so tightly controlled? WTF do you think the freedom of information act is for? There is no national security threat to releasing that information. The 12356 exemption doesn't apply.

You don't think you need to explain Cheney taking Cipro prior to the Anthrax letters even being mailed? Just another coincidence huh? Never mind that the march up the Iraq war was centered around supposed Anthrax Iraq never accounted for according to them.

It's not worth explaining why the Anthrax letters contained words relating to Islamic extremism yet later the source is a supposed disgruntled worker? Lazy. Lazy. Lazy.

There was more than paper miles away. Referring to paper there is just more laziness on your part. You CANT (but act like you dont need to) explain why there were no bodies, wreckage or jet fuel at the site and think it's logical to say the paper blew miles away from a site where supposedly a plane was turned into dirt.

It doesn't matter if Bush was "under attack." His locations were known days prior and anyone attacking America, especially the Pentagon and supposedly the White House would have the President as a target. That's common fucking sense yet there was nothing done to secure the president even after they knew this country was under attack. He sat there reading, completely careless to the situation, Secret Service showed no concern for his safety and you think it doesn't matter.

You've never heard of the Patriot Act? You are too lazy to look up the day the bill is proposed and can't remember or look the Anthrax attacks?

FFS, you try to ignore nearly everything there and give weak, lazy explanations to others and don't even look in the direction of some of the huge points. THAT is why I said I wouldn't waste more time responding to ya. I did it this once because of the lol but surely someone else can man up to it since you can't.

It is not "lazy" to see coincidences for what they are. Coincidences are everywhere, even in large and complex terrorist attacks. It's just a consequence of probability theory, something I hope you will learn about in school one day. What is intellectually lazy is to not see coincidences for what they are but rather use them to conjure up some absurd connections based on an a priori sentiment.

During the period of the attacks many mistakes were made, probably because of misinterpretation of what was happening, miscommunication, rumours flying etc. Rumsfeld claiming that Flight 93 was shot down is one of them. Or at least that is the most plausible explanation. But let's for once consider the alternative, that it really was shot down and that Rumsfeld just told the truth. Why would one of the men behind this huge inside job himself admit shooting down the plane? A slip of the tongue? Is such a slip of the tongue more plausible than Rumsfeld being misinformed or making a mistake in the heat of the moment? Not really.

It doesn't matter that debris was found 8 miles away because light debris can be blown that far with the wind that day. It is that easy.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you on one hand seem to suggest the debris found 8 miles away means Flight 93 must have been shot down, and then, immediately thereafter, claim no debris was found at the crash site. Make up your mind: are you going to follow the conspiracy theory that the plane was shot down or the conspiracy theory that there were no plane? Fact is, that there were both witnesses, plane debris and victims at the crash site. Most of it (except the witnesses, of course) deep buried in the soil. Just as you would expect it if a plane crashed at a steep angle. It sort burrows itself into the softer earth. The engine was found about 300 yards away, in the direction of the flight, a distance the tumbling engine would only have covered in a few seconds. Here is an article of the identification process: http://old.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010925sledzik0925p3.asp Here are a compilation of eyewitness accounts: http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_eyewitness.html More information on the crater and debris found: http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_secondary_debris_field.html

As for alleged fighter planes in the vicinity of the crash site, that is a mistake. There were none, but there was a business jet nearby which was asked to descend to an altitude of around 1,500 ft to survey the impact.

There was a hole in the Pentagon that fit the plane hull. After crashing into the Pentagon, second floor fell down. There are lots of pictures showing this on the Internet. As for eye witness accounts confirming it was a plane and not a rocket, look here: http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm I have already posted pictures of plane debris inside the Pentagon, and can't be bothered again. I have also talked about the identification of the passengers and victims from the Pentagon, I can't be bothered to repeat myself any more. But let's have some fun just considering that you are right. That would mean The Man would have hijacked the plane, landed somewhere else, killed (or somehow silenced) the passengers, then sent a rocket into the Pentagon, faked pictures of debris, and somehow made sure that thousands of witnesses and investigators told a lie. For what exactly? Only in the mind of a deranged person would any of this make sense.

You can read about the investigation of the insider trading and Osama bin Laden here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/19/eveningnews/main311834.shtml

There are no hijackers alive. The guy in the video you posted is not any of the hijackers. All the hijackers have been identified using DNA analyses. You are simply very confused.

There were no explosions in the planes prior to impact with the towers But please, link to a video so I can get a good laugh. And while I wait for that I will again amuse myself but trying to imagine how explosions in the wings of the plane just immediately before impact with the towers, some how fit into your absurd theory. This would mean that the planes, either before or after hijacking, were somehow fitted with bombs. And the reason would be that the explosions already in the towers (remember, that is a cornerstone of your conspiracy theory), as well as the ensuing impact and fires would not be sufficient for the hijackers. They also felt the need to add bombs in the planes. And for some reasons detonated they just prior to impact. That is hilarious.

Uhm, NIST themselves say that if the building fell with free fall speed, it would take 3.9 seconds to collapse. In fact the collapse took 5.4 seconds, which is 40 % longer than the free fall time. Which is in consistence with there being significant amounts of structure impeding the fall. So again you either misunderstand or deliberately lie. Read more here: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

You claim that NORAD has a response time of 10 minutes. Let me just spell out what you are saying here: From the time NORAD is informed of a plane being hijacked they spend only 10 minutes locating that plane, getting a fighter on the air/or redirecting a fighter to the plane. 10 minutes . Fact is that there has only been ONE case in the decade before 9/11 where NORAD intercepted a plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart’s Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. And hat we shoul also mention is that the hijackers disconnected the radar transponders, meaning that NORAD had to look for blimps on radars to find the plane. And do you have any idea how many planes are in air over USA at any given time . Read more about this here: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/

As for FEMA being in New York the day before 9/11, it truly IS a lie . Here is the explanation: Another theory alleges that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) arrived at the World Trade Center on September 10, 2001, thus showing that the government knew about the coming disaster. This claim is based on a statement by Tom Kenney of the Massachusetts task force, who told CBS news anchor Dan Rather on September 13, 2001, “We’re currently, uh, one of the first teams that was deployed to support the city of New York for this disaster. We arrived on, uh, late Monday night and went into action on Tuesday morning. And not until today did we get a full opportunity to work, uh, the entire site.”³⁵ The rather mundane explanation for this quote is that Mr. Kenney confused his days — not an unusual occurrence for someone who had been working for more than two long days in emergency response activities. Thus, a straightforward interpretation of Kenney’s response is that he arrived at Ground Zero on 9/11 (which he incorrectly identified as Monday, rather than Tuesday), went into action on 9/12 (mistakenly identified as Tuesday) and did not get a chance to work the whole WTC site until “today” (the day he was speaking to Rather, or Thursday, 9/13). Additionally, many sources document the arrival of FEMA on 9/11, and Kenney’s wife confirmed the day her husband was dispatched to Ground Zero as 9/11.³⁶ The degree to which the 9/11 Truth Movement will exaggerate and exploit simple misunderstandings does not speak well of their concern for truth. Source: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/

Drinking alcohol is prohibited by most Muslims. Do you have proof that the hijackers drank alcohol? And even if they did, my point remains, nothing suggests these were "good Muslims" at all. If they already had a warped version of Islam where killing thousands of civilians are okay, then surely drinking alcohol would just be a minor deviation.

As for the fuselage, read this: "One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page). PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images—the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."" Source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-planes#thepod

You have yet to demonstrate that any loud, sharp noises where actual explosions and not other loud noises from the collapsing towers, and even if these noises can somehow conclusively be identified as explosions (which they can't), then you have to somehow convincingly argue they are from bombs and not natural explosions as the towers crashed down causing many things to explode.

There were body parts and debris on all crash sites. I have one over this numerous times. Try not to be such a dimwit.

I don't find it strange at all that Pentagon refuses to release videos of a plane crashing into their building. Call me paranoid and a conspiracy theorist, but that is just the sort of behaviour I would expect from Pentagon

As I said earlier, the Pentagon had a hole, and as I have said numerous times, there were lots of debris both inside and outside. Here are pictures showing plane debris inside the Pentagon: http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Yeah, I don't find it strange at all that Cheney would take Ciprox. I would too if I was in his position and USA was under attack. Anthrax is not actually a new biological weapon. I would think the worker wanted to blame Islamic extremists?. Sort of deflect attention to himself.

I don't think you understand how Secret Service works. Those agents next to Bush wouldn't just drag him away unless they were ordered too or unless Bush was in immediate attack from an attacker. And they weren't ordered too because they had no reason to expect an attack on his school at that moment.

You're rapidly becoming one of my very favourite posters (GnR debates notwithstanding).

100 percent agree with this. SoulMonster is demonstrating the patience and work ethic that I just don't have when it comes to these matters. As I noted before, SoulMonster is doing great work in this thread.

[T.wa.T]

I think both of them have done a great job.

In an event like 9/11 there's bound to be some inaccuracies and mistakes as well as some coincidences.

[SoulMonster]

how about those put options then? anyone? Its not like you would call it advanced knowledge or anything.

I did comment on that. There WAS a lot of unusual trading going on prior to 9/11, and to some this means foreknowledge of the attacks while others say it was just coincidence. The problem is of course -- if it wasn't coincidental -- to determine who were behind the trading. With so many investment brokers and investors involved it is easy to find ties to the US government. It is also easy to find ties to foreign countries (the SEC investigation had Osama bin Laden as the suspect). But as far as I understand the situation, no clear evidence in any direction exists so I guess this will remain something that everyone may use to build their theory upon, whether it is conspiracy theorists claiming the government was behind the attacks, whether it is people believing in Al Qaeda and their rich patrons were behind, or whether it is people who just believe it was all coincidence.

From skeptic.com: Various other conspiracy theories focus on the government’s alleged foreknowledge of the terrorist attacks. One popular theory suggests there was a suspiciously high volume of “put” trading of airline stocks in the days just before 9/11. Since “put” trading is effectively a gamble that the price of a stock will decrease, conspiracy theorists surmise that trading “insiders” knew about the coming events of 9/11 and placed their bets accordingly. While this may look suspicious in isolation, the general volume of put trading on these stocks reached similar levels at earlier points in the year. The spike in American Airlines trading was the highest of the all airline companies involved, but that’s hardly surprising considering that the company had just released a major warning about possible losses.Indeed, general bad news about the airline industry prompted investment companies to advise their clients to take the put options, removing any need to blame the trading options on foreknowledge of the attacks. Source: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/

Edited May 3, 2013 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

how about those put options then? anyone? Its not like you would call it advanced knowledge or anything.

I did comment on that. There WAS a lot of unusual trading going on prior to 9/11, and to some this means foreknowledge of the attacks while others say it was just coincidence. The problem is of course -- if it wasn't coincidental -- to determine who were behind the trading. With so many investment brokers and investors involved it is easy to find ties to the US government. It is also easy to find ties to foreign countries (the SEC investigation had Osama bin Laden as the suspect). But as far as I understand the situation, no clear evidence in any direction exists so I guess this will remain something that everyone may use to build their theory upon, whether it is conspiracy theorists claiming the government was behind the attacks, whether it is people believing in Al Qaeda and their rich patrons were behind, or whether it is people who just believe it was all coincidence.

From skeptic.com: Various other conspiracy theories focus on the government’s alleged foreknowledge of the terrorist attacks. One popular theory suggests there was a suspiciously high volume of “put” trading of airline stocks in the days just before 9/11. Since “put” trading is effectively a gamble that the price of a stock will decrease, conspiracy theorists surmise that trading “insiders” knew about the coming events of 9/11 and placed their bets accordingly. While this may look suspicious in isolation, the general volume of put trading on these stocks reached similar levels at earlier points in the year. The spike in American Airlines trading was the highest of the all airline companies involved, but that’s hardly surprising considering that the company had just released a major warning about possible losses.Indeed, general bad news about the airline industry prompted investment companies to advise their clients to take the put options, removing any need to blame the trading options on foreknowledge of the attacks. Source: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/

so who were the benefactors?

As I said, I am sure you can find ties to both the US government (conspiracy theorists love the CIA link to "Buzzy" Krongard) and other parties, like foreign business men who might be sponsoring Al Qaeda. Read about it here: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Put_Options

[Rustycage]

It is not "lazy" to see coincidences for what they are. Coincidences are everywhere, even in large and complex terrorist attacks. It's just a consequence of probability theory, something I hope you will learn about in school one day. What is intellectually lazy is to not see coincidences for what they are but rather use them to conjure up some absurd connections based on an a priori sentiment.

During the period of the attacks many mistakes were made, probably because of misinterpretation of what was happening, miscommunication, rumours flying etc. Rumsfeld claiming that Flight 93 was shot down is one of them. Or at least that is the most plausible explanation. But let's for once consider the alternative, that it really was shot down and that Rumsfeld just told the truth. Why would one of the men behind this huge inside job himself admit shooting down the plane? A slip of the tongue? Is such a slip of the tongue more plausible than Rumsfeld being misinformed or making a mistake in the heat of the moment? Not really.

Rumsfelds supposed slip of the tongue was well after the stories were established. It wasn't just Rumsfeld, it was also a 9/11 commissioner. Still lazy, son.

It doesn't matter that debris was found 8 miles away because light debris can be blown that far with the wind that day. It is that easy.

Human remains were also found miles away, guy. Still lazy and uninformed.

>I find it absolutely hilarious that you on one hand seem to suggest the debris found 8 miles away means Flight 93 must have been shot down, and then, immediately thereafter, claim no debris was found at the crash site. Make up your mind: are you going to follow the conspiracy theory that the plane was shot down or the conspiracy theory that there were no plane? Fact is, that there were both witnesses, plane debris and victims at the crash site. Most of it (except the witnesses, of course) deep buried in the soil. Just as you would expect it if a plane crashed at a steep angle. It sort burrows itself into the softer earth. The engine was found about 300 yards away, in the direction of the flight, a distance the tumbling engine would only have covered in a few seconds. Here is an article of the identification process: http://old.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010925sledzik0925p3.asp Here are a compilation of eyewitness accounts: http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_eyewitness.html More information on the crater and debris found: http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_secondary_debris_field.html

You're not addressing the facts of the issue. With your OWN eyes, there is no wreckage. According to study by the DEP just after the supposed crash, there was no jetfuel in the soil or nearby water sources. The jet fuel, plane and people just went POOF in a matter of minutes? All it takes for you to be convinced is a fucking picture after the fact of some shit in the ground? That still doesn't explain debris and human remains being miles away.

As for alleged fighter planes in the vicinity of the crash site, that is a mistake. There were none, but there was a business jet nearby which was asked to descend to an altitude of around 1,500 ft to survey the impact.

And this is more bullshit. I'd like your source of fighter jet locations concerning Flight 93 at the time. And while you're at it, explain why fighters were scrambled out to sea instead of toward the hijacked aircraft. In order to discredit witnesses, you need something more than just "no."

There was a hole in the Pentagon that fit the plane hull. After crashing into the Pentagon, second floor fell down. There are lots of pictures showing this on the Internet. As for eye witness accounts confirming it was a plane and not a rocket, look here: http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm I have already posted pictures of plane debris inside the Pentagon, and can't be bothered again. I have also talked about the identification of the passengers and victims from the Pentagon, I can't be bothered to repeat myself any more. But let's have some fun just considering that you are right. That would mean The Man would have hijacked the plane, landed somewhere else, killed (or somehow silenced) the passengers, then sent a rocket into the Pentagon, faked pictures of debris, and somehow made sure that thousands of witnesses and investigators told a lie. For what exactly? Only in the mind of a deranged person would any of this make sense.

Show me the hole for the plane. Once again, you are convinced by pictures of small plane parts that even themselves are questionable as to being from a 757. Pictures taken well after the fact. You're too easy to fool.

You can read about the investigation of the insider trading and Osama bin Laden here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/19/eveningnews/main311834.shtml

Where's the follow up? That doesn't show the link to Bin Laden. It only states, "U.S. investigators want to know whether Osama bin Laden was the ultimate "inside trader" " That's it? The big investigation? All they need to say to you is "Did Bin Laden do it?" and you stop asking? Are you that lazy? Never mind, I already know the answer.

There are no hijackers alive. The guy in the video you posted is not any of the hijackers. All the hijackers have been identified using DNA analyses. You are simply very confused.

This has to be the most retarded fucking claim of them all. Popular Mechanics tried that same damn lie and it blew up in their face. Show me where they confirmed the hijackers by DNA. WTC was a total fucking mess where nearly half of the bodies are still unaccounted for and you make that bogus claim. WTC was the longest lasting structural fire in history coupled with that rubble and you think they could identify their bodies? Even in your claim, where did they get the back source of the DNA? You are one lazy and gullible guy.

Alive and is currently a pilot in Morocco.

You're full of it.

There were no explosions in the planes prior to impact with the towers But please, link to a video so I can get a good laugh. And while I wait for that I will again amuse myself but trying to imagine how explosions in the wings of the plane just immediately before impact with the towers, some how fit into your absurd theory. This would mean that the planes, either before or after hijacking, were somehow fitted with bombs. And the reason would be that the explosions already in the towers (remember, that is a cornerstone of your conspiracy theory), as well as the ensuing impact and fires would not be sufficient for the hijackers. They also felt the need to add bombs in the planes. And for some reasons detonated they just prior to impact. That is hilarious.

No one said a thing about bombs on the plane. Military aircraft, just like missiles and warheads, can be suited to be detonated at the nose.

Don't deny it, explain it. You're just being lazy to use YOUR ridiculous possible conclusions to ignore what's in your face.

Explain it. Still want to deny it or laugh it off because you can't grasp it? Just go the the archives and check the multiple angles.

Uhm, NIST themselves say that if the building fell with free fall speed, it would take 3.9 seconds to collapse. In fact the collapse took 5.4 seconds, which is 40 % longer than the free fall time. Which is in consistence with there being significant amounts of structure impeding the fall. So again you either misunderstand or deliberately lie. Read more here: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

Check your link.

3.9 seconds. LOL

They factored in precursor movement on WTC7. They admit to using the AVERAGE of the whole time. When you take out the irrelevant precursor movement, it is falling at a rate of 9.8 meters a second for several seconds. I already showed pages back a high school physics teacher blowing that claim up with his own measurements and detailing the flaws of NIST.

You claim that NORAD has a response time of 10 minutes. Let me just spell out what you are saying here: From the time NORAD is informed of a plane being hijacked they spend only 10 minutes locating that plane, getting a fighter on the air/or redirecting a fighter to the plane. 10 minutes . Fact is that there has only been ONE case in the decade before 9/11 where NORAD intercepted a plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewarts Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. And hat we shoul also mention is that the hijackers disconnected the radar transponders, meaning that NORAD had to look for blimps on radars to find the plane. And do you have any idea how many planes are in air over USA at any given time . Read more about this here: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/ 

One again son, you need to get your shit straight. Fighters were sent to planes at least 67 times in 2001 up to 9/11 and 129 times in 2000 when a flight went of course by 2 miles or 15 degrees. They intercepted in a matter of 10-12 minutes.

You're claiming more of the popular mechanics crap just like the DNA confirmation bullshit. Even in your own explanation, you raise another question, how did these terrorists know how to disable defense systems? Does Bin Laden know our technology? But for it to even need to be addressed, you'd need to show proof of hijackers committing this act. You fuckers are trying to work backwards.

As for FEMA being in New York the day before 9/11, it truly IS a lie . Here is the explanation: Another theory alleges that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) arrived at the World Trade Center on September 10, 2001, thus showing that the government knew about the coming disaster. This claim is based on a statement by Tom Kenney of the Massachusetts task force, who told CBS news anchor Dan Rather on September 13, 2001, Were currently, uh, one of the first teams that was deployed to support the city of New York for this disaster. We arrived on, uh, late Monday night and went into action on Tuesday morning. And not until today did we get a full opportunity to work, uh, the entire site.35 The rather mundane explanation for this quote is that Mr. Kenney confused his days not an unusual occurrence for someone who had been working for more than two long days in emergency response activities. Thus, a straightforward interpretation of Kenneys response is that he arrived at Ground Zero on 9/11 (which he incorrectly identified as Monday, rather than Tuesday), went into action on 9/12 (mistakenly identified as Tuesday) and did not get a chance to work the whole WTC site until today (the day he was speaking to Rather, or Thursday, 9/13). Additionally, many sources document the arrival of FEMA on 9/11, and Kenneys wife confirmed the day her husband was dispatched to Ground Zero as 9/11.36 The degree to which the 9/11 Truth Movement will exaggerate and exploit simple misunderstandings does not speak well of their concern for truth. Source: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/ 

Why the fuck are you proposing theories when Rudy Giuliani is the one that says FEMA was already there for planned exercises the next day(9/11)? You can't see the forest because of the trees.

Drinking alcohol is prohibited by most Muslims. Do you have proof that the hijackers drank alcohol? And even if they did, my point remains, nothing suggests these were "good Muslims" at all. If they already had a warped version of Islam where killing thousands of civilians are okay, then surely drinking alcohol would just be a minor deviation.

"Most Muslims." Another one of your claims is bullshit. It is in their scripture. "intoxicants and games of chance" are called "abominations of Satan's handiwork,"

You can't call them extremists and then try to say they were warped when you can't explain how they weren't being extreme. That's more laziness.

You have yet to demonstrate that any loud, sharp noises where actual explosions and not other loud noises from the collapsing towers, and even if these noises can somehow conclusively be identified as explosions (which they can't), then you have to somehow convincingly argue they are from bombs and not natural explosions as the towers crashed down causing many things to explode. 

Yes I have shown you. It was back when the discussion of shape charges came up. Which you so conveniently disappeared from.

Since I'd much rather you hear it for yourself and from someone in WTC7 prior to any collapses, here's some video. Hopefully youtube videos wont make your sacks shrivel.

Explain the explosion. Many more were reported by news reporters and emergency workers. NOTE THE FIREFIGHTER THAT COMES UP AND SAYS "GET BACK. THE BUILDING IS EXPLODING."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCRK2oITL3g

Explain how these two men were nearly killed by a bomb in WTC BEFORE tower 1 or 2 collapsed?

There were body parts and debris on all crash sites. I have one over this numerous times. Try not to be such a dimwit. 

Once again, son, there were no reported bodies by witnesses at Flight 93 and there were also human remains found miles from the crash site. Did they fly with the paper, dimwit?

I don't find it strange at all that Pentagon refuses to release videos of a plane crashing into their building. Call me paranoid and a conspiracy theorist, but that is just the sort of behaviour I would expect from Pentagon  

It's what you expect because it is what you allow. Freedom of information act, son. Showing the supposed plane hitting the Pentagon isn't a national security threat. FFS, they were already attacked.

As I said earlier, the Pentagon had a hole, and as I have said numerous times, there were lots of debris both inside and outside. Here are pictures showing plane debris inside the Pentagon: http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm 

Show me the hole, son.

Yeah, I don't find it strange at all that Cheney would take Ciprox. I would too if I was in his position and USA was under attack. Anthrax is not actually a new biological weapon. I would think the worker wanted to blame Islamic extremists?. Sort of deflect attention to himself. 

You don't find it strange that we are attacked by Anthrax AFTER Cheney decides to prevent harm to himself from INHALED Anthrax by taking a drug that protects you from INHALED Anthrax? You don't find it odd that the letters were sent to those who opposed the Patriot Act? You're a fuckin fool.

I don't think you understand how Secret Service works. Those agents next to Bush wouldn't just drag him away unless they were ordered too or unless Bush was in immediate attack from an attacker. And they weren't ordered too because they had no reason to expect an attack on his school at that moment. 

Jesus christ you're stupid. IN YOUR OWN EXPLANATIONS AND BUYING OF THE OFFICIAL STORY, THEY SUPPOSEDLY DIDN'T EXPECT ANYTHING ON 9/11. Bush's actions and locations were known days prior and there is no threat to the president when supposed hijackers are flying planes into the Pentagon and supposedly the White House or Camp David next? That is completely ass backwards thinking for those in charge of the president's life.

I have to say, I'm surprised to see you so misinformed of so many issues. From Hijacker DNA verification to NORAD response time to simply using your fucking eyes. Don't be a condescending ass when you're coming off as a complete moron.

Offtopic: FFS, allow us to use more than a handful of quote tags.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Rustycage

[Dazey]

Here is what the last 15 pages looks like to somebody just observing the debate.

Rusty "well, what about X, Y and Z. How do you explain that?"

Soul then responds with a 10 paragraph answer, citing sources and facts and gives detailed information on why X, Y and Z happened.

Pretty much.

[Rustycage]

Apparently neither of you even checked his sources or the contradictions of his claims. You simply take his word for it. You're lazy.

Popular Mechanics editor bitch slapped by his own DNA claims.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Rustycage

[magisme]

Not sure if you guys noticed, but a couple of SM links re Flight 93 are from a site explicitly skeptical about the official story. I'm not saying this proves anything; I'm just saying I don't think some of you are reading as thoroughly as you claim.

[izzygirl]

So...this thread is about who has better google searching skills?

[SoulMonster]

Not sure if you guys noticed, but a couple of SM links re Flight 93 are from a site explicitly skeptical about the official story. I'm not saying this proves anything; I'm just saying I don't think some of you are reading as thoroughly as you claim.

It was just to show some pictures. It doesn't matter if those pictures are at a conspiracy page or not as long as they prove evidence of debris at the sites.

Apparently neither of you even checked his sources or the contradictions of his claims. You simply take his word for it. You're lazy.

Popular Mechanics editor bitch slapped by his own DNA claims.

Can you tell me about these contradictions? And no, I am not watching a video. Write down what those contradictions are and I will address them.

[Rustycage]

Where is the evidence of jet fuel, bodies or wreckage from the site prior to the source in question supplied you with your "evidence."

"I believe the source because they told me to and showed me something that only they saw and found." - Lazy Bones

[magisme]

So...this thread is about who has better google searching skills?

In a nutshell.

Not sure if you guys noticed, but a couple of SM links re Flight 93 are from a site explicitly skeptical about the official story. I'm not saying this proves anything; I'm just saying I don't think some of you are reading as thoroughly as you claim.

It was just to show some pictures. It doesn't matter if those pictures are at a conspiracy page or not as long as they prove evidence of debris at the sites.

I get that part, but you also put a link to eyewitness accounts, some of which said that they heard explosions before the plane crashed and that they thought it had been shot down.

[izzygirl]

Not sure if you guys noticed, but a couple of SM links re Flight 93 are from a site explicitly skeptical about the official story. I'm not saying this proves anything; I'm just saying I don't think some of you are reading as thoroughly as you claim.

It was just to show some pictures. It doesn't matter if those pictures are at a conspiracy page or not as long as they prove evidence of debris at the sites.

Yes, but if the pictures are in that page probably they are trying to prove the opposite. It depends on perceptions then?

[Rustycage]

When the Department of Environmental Protection spokeswoman says that they found no evidence of jet fuel at the site, what's the explanation?

Here it is: The Jet fuel, the bodies, the wreckage all turned into dust and floated away in just minutes. That's why reports on the day of 9/11 showed no debris, why eyewitnesses say there was nothing and why the DEP says they couldn't find any jet fuel. But then they flew back after the cameras left, reorganized into odd debris and buried itself in the dirt for OTHER searchers to find. - Lazy Bones

Edited May 3, 2013 by Rustycage

[SoulMonster]

Not sure if you guys noticed, but a couple of SM links re Flight 93 are from a site explicitly skeptical about the official story. I'm not saying this proves anything; I'm just saying I don't think some of you are reading as thoroughly as you claim.

It was just to show some pictures. It doesn't matter if those pictures are at a conspiracy page or not as long as they prove evidence of debris at the sites.

Yes, but if the pictures are in that page probably they are trying to prove the opposite. It depends on perceptions then?

Nah, they weren't trying to prove that no plane debris were found by posting pictures of plane debris.

[Rustycage]

Flight 93:
We know it crashed, but not why
FBI is silent, fueling "shot down" rumors

By WILLIAM BUNCH
bunchw@phillynews.com
http://dailynews.philly.com/content/daily_news/local/2001/11/15/SHOT15c.htm
Thursday, November 15, 2001





SHANKSVILLE, Pa. - Ernie Stuhl is the mayor of this tiny farming borough that was so brutally placed on America's psychic map on the morning of Sept. 11, when United Airlines Flight 93 slammed nose-down into the edge of a barren strip-mine moonscape a couple of miles outside of town.

A 77-year-old World War II veteran and retired Dodge dealer, he's certainly no conspiracy theorist.

And, when you ask Stuhl for his theory of what caused the jetliner to crash that morning, he will give you the prevailing theory - that a cockpit battle between the hijackers and burly, heroic passengers somehow caused the Boeing 757 to spiral out of control. "There's no doubt in my mind that they did put it down before it got to Washington and caused more damage," he said.

But press the mayor for details, and he will add something surprising.

"I know of two people - I will not mention names - that heard a missile," Stuhl said. "They both live very close, within a couple of hundred yards. . .This one fellow's served in Vietnam and he says he's heard them, and he heard one that day." The mayor adds that based on what he knows about that morning, military F-16 fighter jets were "very, very close."

If the mayor of Shanksville still seems conflicted about what caused the crash of Flight 93 two months ago, he is hardly alone. As the initial shock of Sept. 11 wears off, the crash some 80 miles east of Pittsburgh, and what caused it, is beginning to emerge as the greatest mystery from the worst terrorist attack in American history.

No one has fully explained why the plane went down, or what exactly happened during an eight-minute gap from the time all cell phone calls from the plane stopped and the time it crashed.

And the FBI, which assumed control of the probe from the National Transportation Safety Board, refuses to release data from either of the critical "black boxes," the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder.

Citing the ongoing war on terrorism, the FBI says it can't say when it will release the data - or indeed, if it ever will.

"It's evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation," an FBI spokesman in Pittsburgh, Jeff Killeen, said last week.

This week, the nation was rocked by another jetliner crash - American Airlines Flight 587 in New York - and the difference in the way the probes have been handled is remarkable. In the latest crash, federal officials released detailed information about the cockpit voice recorder in less than 36 hours.

In the case of Flight 93, both the FBI and the nation's air-defense agency - NORAD - have said the aircraft was not shot down.

Said Killeen: "The evidence points to activity on the plane itself - and not elsewhere."

While almost all of the attention given Flight 93 has focused on the bravery of the passengers, the question of why it ultimately went down is not academic. To win the war on terrorism, some say America and its government must continue to occupy the moral high ground - and the failure to release the data in the face of lingering rumors poses a credibility risk.

Predictably, the lack of official information has given rise to a flurry of debate on America's channel for unofficial news: the Internet.

Already, there is a Web site (http://web.archive.org/web/20011116093836/http://www.flight93crash.com/) that summarizes everything known about the crash. And while much of the mainstream media has lost interest in the story, articles suggesting that the government shot down Flight 93 and has lied about it have flourished on left-wing Internet sites and publications.

Of course, in 2001, Internet conspiracy theories are hardly shocking.

What is surprising is this: Go to Shanksville and the surrounding farm fields where people actually saw or heard the jetliner go down at roughly 10:06 that morning and there are a number of people - including witnesses - who also think that Flight 93 was shot down, or at least aren't ruling it out.

Laura Temyer, who lives several miles north of the crash site in Hooversville, was hanging some clothes outside that morning when she heard an airplane pass overhead. That struck her as unusual since she'd just heard on TV that all flights were grounded.

"I heard like a boom and the engine sounded funny," she told the Daily News. "I heard two more booms - and then I did not hear anything."

What does Temyer think she heard? "I think the plane was shot down," insists Temyer, who said she has twice told her story to the FBI. What's more, she insists that people she knows in state law enforcement have told her the same thing, that the plane was shot down and that decompression sucked objects from the aircraft, explaining why there was a wide debris field.

But an eyewitness, Linda Shepley, said she had an unobstructed view of Flight 93's final two minutes and has reached the opposite conclusion. She recalls seeing the plane wobbling right and left, at a low altitude of roughly 2,500 feet, when suddenly the right wing abruptly dipped straight down, and the Boeing 757 plunged into the earth.

"It's not true," said Shepley of the persistent rumors. "If it had been shot down, there would have been pieces flying, but it was intact - there was nothing wrong with it."

So what are the clues that have prompted the crash of Flight 93 to remain a lingering mystery?

* THE 911 CALL. At 9:58 a.m., roughly eight minutes before impact, a 911 emergency dispatcher in neighboring Westmoreland County took a call from a frantic passenger who said he was locked in the bathroom of Flight 93 and that the plane had been hijacked. The caller said there had been an explosion aboard the plane and there was white smoke. Authorities have never explained the report, and the 911 tape itself was immediately confiscated by the FBI.

* THE DEBRIS FIELD. The reclaimed mine where the plane crashed is composed of very soft soil, and searchers say much of the wreckage was found buried 20-25 feet below the large crater. But despite that, there was also widely scattered debris in the immediate vicinity and further afield. Considerable debris washed up more than two miles away at Indian Lake, and a canceled check and brokerage statement from the plane was found in a deep valley some eight miles away that week.

* THE MYSTERY PLANE. Many people in the Shanksville area, including some interviewed by the Daily News, saw a fast-moving, unmarked small jet fly overhead a very short time after Flight 93 crashed. Several days later, authorities said they believe the plane was a Falcon 20 private jet that was headed to nearby Johnstown but was asked to descend and survey the crash site. Yet officials have never identified the pilot nor explained why he was still airborne roughly 30 minutes after the government ordered all aircraft to land at the closest airport.

* THE ENGINE. While the FBI and other authorities have said the plane was mostly obliterated by the roughly 500 mph impact, they also said an engine - or at least a 1,000-pound piece of one - was found "a considerable distance" from the crater. Stuhl, the Shanksville mayor, said it was found in the woods just west of the crash. That information is intriguing to shoot-down theory proponents, since the heat-seeking, air-to-air Sidewinder missiles aboard an F-16 would likely target one of the Boeing 757's two large engines.

* LOCATION OF F-16S. From Day 1, the government has given conflicting accounts about the exact whereabouts of three North Dakota Air National Guard F-16s, assigned to national air defense, based at Langley Air Force base in Virginia and scrambled at the height of the attacks.

Just a few days after the crash, a federal flight controller told a Nashua, N.H., newspaper that an F-16 was "in hot pursuit" of the hijacked United jet, following so closely that it made 360-degree turns to stay in range. "He must have seen the whole thing," an unnamed aviation official said.

No one would argue that two months after Flight 93 tumbled into a Pennsylvania hillside killing all 44 aboard that there is more that we don't know about what happened in the flight's final minutes than we do know.

We don't even know for sure where the four hijackers were going.

Based on the plane's general course, the conventional wisdom is that Flight 93 was headed toward Washington and a strike on the White House or the Capitol. But last month, the widely respected Times of London, quoting U.S. intelligence sources and noting the plane's low altitude and erratic course, suggested the real target might have been one of the state's nuclear power plants. At 500 mph, the Three Mile Island plant, near Harrisburg, was about than 10 or 15 minutes away.

Whether it was hero passengers or an F-16 fighter pilot who wanted the hijacked jetliner to come down away from a populated area, they did an amazing job in picking Shanksville.

The nearest sizable town, Somerset, is 10 miles away on winding back-country roads - where a visitor encountered as many dead raccoons as vehicles. Nestled along a creekbed in the rolling Allegheny foothills, Shanksville is a small cluster of red-brick homes and flag-draped front porches.

The only commercial enterprise, a convenience store called Ida's, also rents videos and has the only ATM for miles around.

What happened here on Sept. 11 is already the stuff of American legend - especially the battle cry of passenger Todd Beamer, whose overheard command of "Let's Roll" is on bumper stickers and has even been adopted by President Bush.

Four Middle Eastern hijackers sought to carry out their plan even though the mostly empty plane, bound from Newark, N.J., to San Francisco, had left the airport 42 minutes late because of mechanical problems. The delay meant that passengers - who phoned family members and operators on their cell phones - learned of the suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon and knew that their only option was to fight the hijackers for control of the plane.

The almost irrefutable evidence is that a group of burly and heroic male passengers - including Beamer, Mark Bingham, Jeremy Glick, Tom Burnett, and Lou Nacke - did just that. In the only piece of information from the cockpit voice recorder that has filtered into news reports, anonymous sources told USA Today last month that there is evidence of a struggle toward the end of the doomed flight.

But the cell phone calls from the passengers all stopped about 9:58 a.m. - roughly the same time that the caller to 911 in Westmoreland County stated there had been an explosion.

The plane didn't come down until 10:06 - leaving an 8-minute gap of unaccounted for air time, and thus a great mystery.

The commonly accepted view, that a chaotic cockpit struggle caused the downing, is certainly a plausible explanation for the crash - but it doesn't address the issue of how.

Who was at the controls for those final eight minutes? Would a hijacker deliberately crash the plane during such a battle? What rudders or other controls could have been set off, either in a scuffle or by accident, that could cause the highly automated jet to crash?

Many of the answers - if not all - should be contained on the black boxes recovered shortly after the crash. Without that data, however, a number of aviation experts contacted by the Daily News were reluctant to speculate.

"Those are the things that would answer those questions - without those I don't know how to answer," said Carl Vogt, a former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board and now a Washington attorney.

When Flight 93 came down, the eyewitnesses seem to agree on a few basic facts - that the Boeing 757 was headed south or southeast very fast, that it was flying erratically or banking from side to side, that its right wing dipped steeply down and that the jetliner came down at close to a 90-degree angle. A number of people quoted right after the crash said there were strange noises, that the engine seemed to race but then went eerily silent as the plane plummeted.

The plane seemed to be fully, or largely, intact. "I didn't see no smoke, nothing," said Nevin Lambert, an elderly farmer who witnessed the crash from his side yard less than a half-mile away.

Lambert also said he also later found a couple of pieces of debris, one a piece of metal, less than 12 inches across, with some insulation attached. To those who are debating the causes of the crash, the debris is particularly significant because heavier farflung debris would suggest that something happened to cause the plane to break up before it hit the ground.

Authorities also sought to explain why a number of residents saw a small, unmarked jet circling over the crash site shortly after. Workers at a marina saw it, and so did Kathy Blades, who was in her small summer cottage about a quarter-mile from the impact site.

Blades and her son ran outside after the crash and saw the jet, with sleek back wings and an angled cockpit, race overhead. "My son said, 'I think we're under attack!' " She said she was so shocked by the crash she can't say exactly how long after the impact it was.

A few days later, the FBI offered a possible explanation for what the witnesses saw. Authorities said that a private Falcon 20 jet bound for nearby Johnstown was in the vicinity and was asked by authorities to descend and help survey the crash site. But the authorities didn't identify the owner of the jet, nor explain why it was airborne some 40 minutes after the Federal Aviation Administration ordered all planes to land at the nearest airport.

So where was the U.S. air defense at 10 a.m. - 72 minutes after the first plane struck the World Trade Center and about a half-hour after air controllers and United started to suspect that Flight 93 had been hijacked?

At 9:24 that morning, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) ordered three F-16s from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to scramble. They were airborne at 9:30. It's not clear how close any of the planes were to Flight 93, although Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said a few days later on TV that "we were already tracking that plane that crashed in Pennsylvania."

Vice President Dick Cheney said later that President Bush authorized the military to shoot down any civilian plane that did not respond to air-traffic control and appeared to be a threat. The order is said to have come before Bush left Florida, which was at 9:58 a.m.

The commander of the North Dakota Air National Guard, which was handling air defense out of Langley that morning, later told the New York Times that the unidentified pilots received a harrowing order.

"A person came on the radio," Major Gen. Mike Haugen said, "and identified themselves as being with the Secret Service and he said, 'I want you to protect the White House at all costs.' "

What happened in those final 8 minutes?

Most Americans are quite comfortable with the conclusion that the struggle between the passengers and the hijackers caused the crash of Flight 93. Roxanne Sullivan, who lives at the end of Skyline Drive in Shanksville and helped erect and maintain one of the memorials, says she has absolutely no doubt that's what happened. How does she know?

"Right here," she said, thumping her heart.

Not all her neighbors are so convinced.

"I think it was shot down," said Dennis Mock, who was not an eyewitness but lives closest to the crash site on the west side. "That's what people around here think."

Until the FBI decides to release the flight data, there will be little to convince him or his neighbors otherwise.

As you can see, this isn't a bias report. It tries to paint the picture of the site being a crash site yet the interviews conducted, like majority of the others on the day and after show that witnesses believe it was shot down.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Rustycage

[SoulMonster]

Where is the evidence of jet fuel, bodies or wreckage from the site prior to the source in question supplied you with your "evidence."

I am not sure if jet fuel is really expected. Not in huge quantities anyway. Regardless, there are plenty of pictures of plane debris at the site and plenty of evidence for human remains including the coroner's report as while as eyewitness reports. You won't find pictures of human remains though. Most of the passengers and hijackers had been burned away and only 8 % of them were found, all in rather small pieces. Based on these pieces the coroner identified all passengers and hijackers using DNA analysis.

I have already linked to such evidence numerous times. But 'ere we go again!:

Pictures of plane debris found at Flight 93 crash site: http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93_photos.html

Eyewitness account from right after the crash talking about debris: http://old.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010911somerset0911p4.asp

And here's an article with the coroner talking about the case and briefly mentioning the work he did: http://articles.dailyamerican.com/2011-09-09/news/30137822_1_plane-crash-bloggers-coroner-wallace-miller

And I can't help myself pointing out how hilarious it is that you both claim there was no plane crash and then also claim debris were found so far away the plane must have been shot down. I sympathise, it can't be easy to pick one's conspiracy theory when they are all so...good.

Not sure if you guys noticed, but a couple of SM links re Flight 93 are from a site explicitly skeptical about the official story. I'm not saying this proves anything; I'm just saying I don't think some of you are reading as thoroughly as you claim.

It was just to show some pictures. It doesn't matter if those pictures are at a conspiracy page or not as long as they prove evidence of debris at the sites.

I get that part, but you also put a link to eyewitness accounts, some of which said that they heard explosions before the plane crashed and that they thought it had been shot down.

It's rather typical. Among 100 random eye witness accounts you will always find lots of contradictions and exaggerations. My objective was just to provide some evidence that people actually saw the plane and hence that the idea that there was no plane is rather silly.

Edited May 3, 2013 by SoulMonster

[Rustycage]

Where is the evidence of jet fuel, bodies or wreckage from the site prior to the source in question supplied you with your "evidence."

I am not sure if jet fuel is really expected. Not in huge quantities anyway. Regardless, there are plenty of pictures of plane debris at the site and plenty of evidence for human remains including the coroner's report as while as eyewitness reports. You won't find pictures of human remains though. Most of the passengers and hijackers had been burned away and only 8 % of them were found, all in rather small pieces. Based on these pieces the coroner identified all passengers and hijackers using DNA analysis.

I have already linked to such evidence numerous times. But 'ere we go again!:

Pictures of plane debris found at Flight 93 crash site: http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93_photos.html

Eyewitness account from right after the crash talking about debris: http://old.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010911somerset0911p4.asp

And here's an article with the coroner talking about the case and briefly mentioning the work he did: http://articles.dailyamerican.com/2011-09-09/news/30137822_1_plane-crash-bloggers-coroner-wallace-miller

And I can't help myself pointing out how hilarious it is that you both claim there were no car crash and then also claim debris were found so far away the plane must have been shot down. I sympathise, it can't be easy to pick one's conspiracy theory when they are all so...good.

Jet fuel is to be expected in the soil. There was none!

You can keep linking to the debris found well after the reports of the crash along with images of nothing. You're apparently too stupid to understand that what you find after a scene is tainted is not reliable. Especially since you're trying to claim the Earth completely swallowed that massive plane and all of the Jet Fuel to leave no trace of the wreckage or bodies to onlookers and aerial views and also leaving no evidence of Jet Fuel for the DEP to find.

It's rather typical. Among 100 random eye witness accounts you will always find lots of contradictions and exaggerations. My objective was just to provide some evidence that people actually saw the plane and hence that the idea that there was no plane is rather silly.

Is it typical for a man verified to be in WTC7 before and during the collapse of 1 and 2 to describe how he was nearly killed by a bomb blast in the building BEFORE 1 and 2 collapsed?

[SoulMonster]

Where is the evidence of jet fuel, bodies or wreckage from the site prior to the source in question supplied you with your "evidence."

I am not sure if jet fuel is really expected. Not in huge quantities anyway. Regardless, there are plenty of pictures of plane debris at the site and plenty of evidence for human remains including the coroner's report as while as eyewitness reports. You won't find pictures of human remains though. Most of the passengers and hijackers had been burned away and only 8 % of them were found, all in rather small pieces. Based on these pieces the coroner identified all passengers and hijackers using DNA analysis.

I have already linked to such evidence numerous times. But 'ere we go again!:

Pictures of plane debris found at Flight 93 crash site: http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93_photos.html

Eyewitness account from right after the crash talking about debris: http://old.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010911somerset0911p4.asp

And here's an article with the coroner talking about the case and briefly mentioning the work he did: http://articles.dailyamerican.com/2011-09-09/news/30137822_1_plane-crash-bloggers-coroner-wallace-miller

And I can't help myself pointing out how hilarious it is that you both claim there were no car crash and then also claim debris were found so far away the plane must have been shot down. I sympathise, it can't be easy to pick one's conspiracy theory when they are all so...good.

Jet fuel is to be expected in the soil. There was none!

You can keep linking to the debris found well after the reports of the crash along with images of nothing. You're apparently too stupid to understand that what you find after a scene is tainted is not reliable. Especially since you're trying to claim the Earth completely swallowed that massive plane and all of the Jet Fuel to leave no trace of the wreckage or bodies to onlookers and aerial views and also leaving no evidence of Jet Fuel for the DEP to find.

Heh. My line of reasoning was that the great majority of the jet fuel would have perished in the explosion. What you need to provide me with is two things, (1) some quotes from air plane investigators (real ones...) who state that jet fuel is expected in a crash like this, and (2) some evidence that jet fuel wasn't present at the crash site, and voila! you would for the first time in this thread have succeeded in not only arguing properly, but also presenting some evidence that is in favour of the conspiracy theories! Wouldn't that feel nice?

And don't lie about me claiming that the earth swallowed the whole plane. I have never said such a thing. I have stated that we would expect to find most of the plane far embedded in the soil. I have never denied that plane debris was found elsewhere. In fact I have numerous time talked about the light debris found some miles away as well as the engine which tumbled some distance from the crash site. I mean, you can try to get away with lying about what took place and hope no one bothers to research this event (and you will obviously be wrong), but lying about what I have said in this very thread will be immediately apparent to anyone reading it. And if there is one thing you should try to aim at is to appear to care about the truth. It would really help your argumentation.

But before I hit "post I will entertain myself with pondering about what you really are saying here. You are somehow claiming that there was no crash at all, but that debris was somehow brought in after the crash to fool witnesses (and nevermind those early witnesses who have actually stated they saw plane debris when they arrived). And this "fake debris" was not only brought in, but also somehow dug down far into the ground to simulate a real crash. Just imagine that, engines, fuselage, landing gear, etc etc, planted after thefake crash without anyone noticing. And not only did they fake debris, they also added fake human remains/or actual remains of the passengers from Flight 93 who had in the mean time been killed somewhere else. And for what reason? The Man had already crashed three planes into other planes, why would they suddenly fake the crash of Flight 93? Do you honestly really believe this nonsense is more plausible than the theory that terrorists hijacked four planes and caused them to crash at various places?? If so I genuinely feel sorry for you and I have to rethink my strategy in this discussion and stop treated you like a human being with normal cognitive development.

It's rather typical. Among 100 random eye witness accounts you will always find lots of contradictions and exaggerations. My objective was just to provide some evidence that people actually saw the plane and hence that the idea that there was no plane is rather silly.

Is it typical for a man verified to be in WTC7 before and during the collapse of 1 and 2 to describe how he was nearly killed by a bomb blast in the building BEFORE 1 and 2 collapsed?

I have to applaud you for your ingenious usage of large font size, I wish I would have thought of that before.

Can you provide me with some source for your claim about this mystery man and I will try to address this event to the best of my abilities.

Edited May 3, 2013 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

As you can see, this isn't a bias report. It tries to paint the picture of the site being a crash site yet the interviews conducted, like majority of the others on the day and after show that witnesses believe it was shot down.

Damn! Out-argued by those large letters again!

I have read quite many eye witness reports and the majority does not say anything about the plane being shot down. If it was shot down then this should be evident from the plane debris found at the ground, the debris should be spread over a larger area, and more people should have seen the attacking jet and even seen the explosion in the sky. Based on the evidence at hand, this theory is just very implausible.

But let's not stop there! Let's also consider the motives for shooting it down, because that is fun. The conspiracy theorists claim it was shot down because the passengers were about to get control and it would be really bad for The Man if the hijackers survived to tell about who were really behind 9/11. Hence the plane had to be shot down, nevermind the risk of eye witnesses seeing and even recording the shoot down, nevermind the low probability of the passengers actually getting control of the plane and successfully landing it, nevermind the fact that according to the conspiracy the planes were already fitted with bombs that could much more easily and less conspicuous have done the job. And again, this is something you believe in...Wow.

And again, make up your mind about which conspiracy you adhere to, the one where Flight 93 is shot down by a US fighter jet to make sure the hijackers are killed, or the one where Flight 93 landed somewhere else and the whole crash was faked for unknown but guaranteed absurd reasons. I mean, these theories aren't mutually cohesive (is that the expression?), you can't fawn over both equally, it makes you come across as someone who is willing to accept ANY alternative theory regardless of how moronic it is.

Edited May 3, 2013 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

So...this thread is about who has better google searching skills?

Not really. Whereas we both link to external sites, mine actually provide some evidence while his just provide some other people claiming the same thing he is claiming. Here is a typical example:

Rusty: There was no debris at the Flight 93 crash site and here's a link to an article from a conspiracy site or a youtube video where someone is claiming there was no debris there.

Me: There was, and here's a link with photos as well as accounts from witnesses who saw debris or a link to some actual experts who discuss the topic.

You could replace "debris at Flight 93 site" with "molten steel at WTC", "secondary explosions", "no debris at Pentagon", "no human remains at Pentagon", "free-fall speed of WTC 7", "no civilian plane crashing into WTC", "not possible to bring down WTC without explosives", "WTC 7 wasn't much damaged", "no plane hit the Pentagon" and many, many more. All baseless claims which I have hopefully demonstrated are either completely wrong or very unlikely.

Things doesn't become true just because it is on youtube, things doesn't become true just because someone else states so, too, things doesn't become true just because it is repeated many times, things doesn't become true just because it solidifies an existing sentiment, things doesn't become true just because it is written in large typeface. You argue for why something is probably true by providing evidence that supports that conclusion while also demonstrating that the evidence comprise a cohesive and logical theory.

Edited May 3, 2013 by SoulMonster

[magisme]

I think you meant those theories ARE mutually exclusive. Minor rhetorical point.

Edited May 3, 2013 by magisme

[SoulMonster]

I think you meant those theories ARE mutually exclusive.

Thanks! That would do, but I think there was some other expression I had in mind, oh well.

[SoulMonster]

Here is a great article about the collapse of WTC written by demolition experts: http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

[Apollo]

I was watching the show Finding Bigfoot a few months ago. At the end of the show, where of course no sightings happened, the host said "The fact we DIDN'T SEE any sasquatches PROVES that this area is crawling with them." His theory being that the sasquatches were so smart they were able to avoid being seen by humans. So by not seeing any........clearly that proved they do exist.

Soul, that is the type of logic you are going up against in this topic.

You bring up two points that really drive this home.

Rusty has so many conspiracys going that some of them are contradicting each other. Was there a plane crash or wasn't there - as he is using both sides to argue his point!

And the validity of your sources/witnesses. You bring up scientific facts on how things played out, he totally discredits your points by saying some farmer from Iowa in New York on vacation says he heard a missle going off. What is the logical conclusion? Thousands say no missle, one guy says there was a missle............which side is the logical one to believe?

Conspiracy are fun to look at and think about. But at some point, logic must take over. And the bottom line is that an event as MASSIVE as 9/11 is going to have a hundred weird coincidences that people could try and string together to make it look like something sinister happened. OOOOhhhhh, Joe Blow worked at the towers and called in sick the day of 9/11............and he also sold his airlines stock the day before............and his parents from out of town visiting LEFT NY city the night before 9/11..............Joe Blow must have known the attacks were going to happen. And you just blow it up from there.

Also, the amount of people that would have to be "in" on the cover-up would be overwhelming. And to think that all of those people could orchestrate the crashes and then keep quiet about it........it is just ridiculous. Theories are fun, but when you think about the actual logistics of it, then logic has to take over and you realize it couldn't have happened.

And to think that the world's greatest investigative journalists can't tie it all together, knowing that they would literally make millions of dollars and would be the most famous reporters since Woodward and Bernstein........but random people on youtube have solved the case...........again, just preposterous.