9/11

[Hollus]

Now explain why all the witnesses to Flight 77 hitting the Penatgon are lying......or how all of the video evidence was doctored....or as the above poster says, how the passengers and plane of flight 77 became the Oceanic Flight 815 got Lost and what role does 4, 8, 15, 16 23 and 42 play?

What video evidence are you speaking of? If you have any video that shows anything discenrable other than a fireball please do post it. If we are to rely strictly on eye witness accounts (of which many conflict) than Im sure you will have no issue with relying on the numerous eye witness accounts of the multidude of explosions within the WTC buildings.

Once again, if Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon as is widely held, lets see the classified tapes so we can all put this part of the mystery to rest.

[M.Dancer]

Now explain why all the witnesses to Flight 77 hitting the Penatgon are lying......or how all of the video evidence was doctored....or as the above poster says, how the passengers and plane of flight 77 became the Oceanic Flight 815 got Lost and what role does 4, 8, 15, 16 23 and 42 play?

What video evidence are you speaking of? If you have any video that shows anything discenrable other than a fireball please do post it. If we are to rely strictly on eye witness accounts (of which many conflict) than Im sure you will have no issue with relying on the numerous eye witness accounts of the multidude of explosions within the WTC buildings.

Once again, if Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon as is widely held, lets see the classified tapes so we can all put this part of the mystery to rest.

Why shouldn't there be explosions in an office tower that had a heavy jet airliner crash into it? I would be more surprised if there were none.

Anyway, there are dozens and dozens of eye witnesses...that fact that perhaps some of the minutia doesn't agree is negated that they agree on the main thing. An airliner crashed into the pentagon.

[Hollus]

Lets look at WTC 7 collapse. How are we to believe that this building completly collapses into its own foot print as a result of the minor damage it sustained? Ofcoures we have the natorious "pull it" statment from lease holder Silverstien. Even firefighters had been ordered to stay away long before its collapse being told the building was coming down. But what about the tremendous damage sustained by WTC 5 and 6? These building remain standing. Somethings fishy...WTC 5,6,7 pic

[M.Dancer]

Lets look at WTC 7 collapse. How are we to believe that this building completly collapses into its own foot print as a result of the minor damage it sustained?

No we are not to believe that.

WTC did not receive minor damage.

[Hollus]

Why shouldn't there be explosions in an office tower that had a heavy jet airliner crash into it? I would be more surprised if there were none.

Anyway, there are dozens and dozens of eye witnesses...that fact that perhaps some of the minutia doesn't agree is negated that they agree on the main thing. An airliner crashed into the pentagon.

Explosions in the basement, the lobby, various floors uneffected by the planes impact, the "squibs" occuring of to 30 floors below the collapse. The fact that all the witnessed explosions coincide with demolition procedure. Why should there be explosions? What was exploding?

An airliner crahsed into the Pentagon? Lets see it. Freedom of Information Act. Release the tapes.

[Hollus]

Lets look at WTC 7 collapse. How are we to believe that this building completly collapses into its own foot print as a result of the minor damage it sustained?

No we are not to believe that.

WTC did not receive minor damage.

WTC 7 did not recieve minor damage? It sure came down in quite symetrical fashoin for having a few sparse fires. Wasnt hit by any planes. Minor debris at best. Take a look at the photo. What makes WTC 5 and 6 so much more resilient that they could withstand the tremendous damage they had without collapsing? This is a pretty huge thing to ignore. Why did the WTC 7 structurly fail?

[M.Dancer]

An airliner crahsed into the Pentagon? Lets see it. Freedom of Information Act. Release the tapes.

What tapes....if you and the other kooks won't believe the relatives of the dead passengers, airplane wreckage at the scene, eye witnesses and video images...why would you believe so called tapes that have been the hands of the government for 6 years?

Lets face it, until the toasters and microwaves of the world start broadcasting messages direct to the tin foil hats that terrorists did this, the crack pots won;t believe......

[M.Dancer]

Lets look at WTC 7 collapse. How are we to believe that this building completly collapses into its own foot print as a result of the minor damage it sustained?

No we are not to believe that.

WTC did not receive minor damage.

WTC 7 did not recieve minor damage? It sure came down in quite symetrical fashoin for having a few sparse fires.

You aren't really interested in reality are you?

As the North Tower collapsed, debris hit 7 WTC "with the force of a volcanic eruption."[16] Much of the bottom 10 stories of the building's south face were destroyed, with damage visible as high as the 18th floor. At 5:20 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center collapsed. It had been evacuated and there were no casualties associated with the actual collapse of 7 WTC

Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyzes are needed to resolve this issue. [Ch. 5, p. 31.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

[Hollus]

An airliner crahsed into the Pentagon? Lets see it. Freedom of Information Act. Release the tapes.

What tapes....if you and the other kooks won't believe the relatives of the dead passengers, airplane wreckage at the scene, eye witnesses and video images...why would you believe so called tapes that have been the hands of the government for 6 years?

Lets face it, until the toasters and microwaves of the world start broadcasting messages direct to the tin foil hats that terrorists did this, the crack pots won;t believe......

"The FBI is withholding at least another 84 surveillance tapes that were seized in the immediate aftermath of the attack on the Pentagon."Classified Pentagon Tapes

[Hollus]

Lets look at WTC 7 collapse. How are we to believe that this building completly collapses into its own foot print as a result of the minor damage it sustained?

No we are not to believe that.

WTC did not receive minor damage.

WTC 7 did not recieve minor damage? It sure came down in quite symetrical fashoin for having a few sparse fires.

You aren't really interested in reality are you?

As the North Tower collapsed, debris hit 7 WTC "with the force of a volcanic eruption."[16] Much of the bottom 10 stories of the building's south face were destroyed, with damage visible as high as the 18th floor. At 5:20 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center collapsed. It had been evacuated and there were no casualties associated with the actual collapse of 7 WTC

Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyzes are needed to resolve this issue. [Ch. 5, p. 31.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

"Even if one accepts all of NIST's claims about extensive structural damage to WTC 7, and its claims about fires on several different floors, its collapse scenario is not remotely plausible. The alleged damage was asymmetric, confined to the tower's south side, and any weakening of the steelwork from fire exposure would also be asymmetric. Thus, even if the damage were sufficient to cause the whole building to collapse, it would have fallen over asymmetrically -- toward the south. But WTC 7 fell straight down, into its own footprint."

And ofcourse, we have the leaseholders "pull it" statement. And ofcourse, we can see quite obviously that WTC 5 and 6 were desimated by debris yet remained standing. If you fail to recognize the inconsistance between the WTC7 collapse and the surrounding buildings which sustained much more damage but still remained standing. If you fail to recognize the striking simularity between controlled demolition and the collapse of WTC7, than it is you who is not interested in reality.

[bush_cheney2004]

PNAC had in its sights permenant military presence to protect American strategic interests(Unocal's long standing efforts for a tans-Afghan pipeline) and the removal of Saddam (the most militarily vulnerable centrally located state in the middle-east and home to vast undeveloped oil resource which had trillion dollar contracts with France and Russia to be implemented once sanctions would have been lifted in 2002)

No kidding? Tell us something we don't already know. The US didn't need 9/11 to pursue any of these objectives....Saddam had already been attacked many times and regime change was a matter of public law. See Operation Desert Fox.

[ScottSA]

Everyone seems to have forgotten the near unanimity in the American Congress in denouncing Saddam and calling for war. Everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten the months and months of discussion over the inspection regimes and how that was always front and center in the debate over going to war; nationally and internationally. Now all of a sudden, the tinfoil hatters seem to think that 911 was the sole drive in the war against Iraq, when in fact it was at best peripheral.

[Hollus]

No kidding? Tell us something we don't already know. The US didn't need 9/11 to pursue any of these objectives....Saddam had already been attacked many times and regime change was a matter of public law. See Operation Desert Fox.

Everyone seems to have forgotten the near unanimity in the American Congress in denouncing Saddam and calling for war. Everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten the months and months of discussion over the inspection regimes and how that was always front and center in the debate over going to war; nationally and internationally. Now all of a sudden, the tinfoil hatters seem to think that 911 was the sole drive in the war against Iraq, when in fact it was at best peripheral.

Selling the Iraq and Afgan wars to the American public without the advent of 9/11 would have been an entirely different matter than it was. Which is exactly what was implied by the PNAC document.

[bush_cheney2004]

Selling the Iraq and Afgan wars to the American public without the advent of 9/11 would have been an entirely different matter that in was. Which is exactly what was implied by the PNAC document.

The US was already at "war" with Saddam's Iraq long before 9/11. Did Canada and the rest of NATO also have "PNAC" motives for invading Afghanistan?

Must have something like this, eh?

"Hey, I have a great idea. Let's write our manifesto for world domination, publish it, and then invade Afghanistan....wait a spell, then invade Iraq." Nobody will notice!

Brilliant!

[Riverwind]

Most people thought, many people, great thinkers, scientists, truthtellers, are "raving lunatics" who are then persecuted or imprisoned and them time shows them to be correct.

ROTFL - you actually compare yourself to 'great thinkers'? You forget that the overwhelming majority of people who are dismissed as lunatics are _in fact_ lunatics. Only a small minority end up being proven right.

You also missed my point. I was simply stating a fact: the majority of people DO think truthies are raving lunatics. That is why the onus is on you to provide a credible alternate explaination. Why don't you admit that the only reason you refuse to provide one is because you can't?

[ScottSA]

Selling the Iraq and Afgan wars to the American public without the advent of 9/11 would have been an entirely different matter that in was. Which is exactly what was implied by the PNAC document.

The US was already at "war" with Saddam's Iraq long before 9/11. Did Canada and the rest of NATO also have "PNAC" motives for invading Afghanistan?

Must have something like this, eh?

"Hey, I have a great idea. Let's write our manifesto for world domination, publish it, and then invade Afghanistan....wait a spell, then invade Iraq." Nobody will notice!

Brilliant!

Devilishly clever plot, I must say.

[Hollus]

"Hey, I have a great idea. Let's write our manifesto for world domination, publish it, and then invade Afghanistan....wait a spell, then invade Iraq." Nobody will notice!

Apparently you can't grasp it. Do you really believe the American public is well informed? 70% of Americans believe Saddam Hussien was personally involved in 9/11. Iraq 9/11 poll

[Hollus]

Selling the Iraq and Afgan wars to the American public without the advent of 9/11 would have been an entirely different matter that in was. Which is exactly what was implied by the PNAC document.

The US was already at "war" with Saddam's Iraq long before 9/11. Did Canada and the rest of NATO also have "PNAC" motives for invading Afghanistan?

Must have something like this, eh?

"Hey, I have a great idea. Let's write our manifesto for world domination, publish it, and then invade Afghanistan....wait a spell, then invade Iraq." Nobody will notice!

Brilliant!

Devilishly clever plot, I must say.

Do you have anything to contribute to this thread? I think you should re-write your signiture as it is quite out of line with your actual behavior.

[bush_cheney2004]

Apparently you can't grasp it. Do you really believe the American public is well informed? 70% of Americans believe Saddam Hussien was personally involved in 9/11. Iraq 9/11 poll

The American public believes in a lot of things....they have the right to do so. They elected a Congress that doomed Saddam way back in 1998...long before 9/11.

Try again....

[Hollus]

Apparently you can't grasp it. Do you really believe the American public is well informed? 70% of Americans believe Saddam Hussien was personally involved in 9/11. Iraq 9/11 poll

The American public believes in a lot of things....they have the right to do so. They elected a Congress that doomed Saddam way back in 1998...long before 9/11.

Try again....

Provide a source for that. Operation Desert Fox had absolutely nothing to do with invasion and occupation of Iraq. Assuming that the intelligence on Saddam's WMDs prior to Operation Desert Fox was accurate, Operation Desert Fox was justifiable and successful in reducing Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities to rubble. After Operation Desert Fox in 1998, the intelligence obtained prior to that could not be used as justification for another attack on Saddam Hussein, especially since senior Bush administration officials admitted even in early-to-mid 2001 that Saddam had been effectively defanged of his WMDs.

So it is you who must try again, or wake up to the fact that you are being grossly decieved by your government and news media.

[bush_cheney2004]

Provide a source for that. Operation Desert Fox had absolutely nothing to do with invasion and occupation of Iraq. Assuming that the intelligence on Saddam's WMDs prior to Operation Desert Fox was accurate, Operation Desert Fox was justifiable and successful in reducing Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities to rubble. After Operation Desert Fox in 1998, the intelligence obtained prior to that could not be used as justification for another attack on Saddam Hussein, especially since senior Bush administration officials admitted even in early-to-mid 2001 that Saddam had been effectively defanged of his WMDs.

So it is you who must try again, or wake up to the fact that you are being grossly decieved by your government and news media.

Another rookie who doesn't do homework...see "Iraq Liberation Act", to wit:

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) [1] (codified in a note to 22 USCS § 2151) is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.

...President George W. Bush has often referred to the Act and its findings to argue that the Clinton Administration supported regime change in Iraq and further that it believed that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. The Act was cited as a basis of support in the Congressional Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq in October of 2002 (Public Law 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

In 1998, George Bush was still governor of Texas. Desert Fox was a four day decapitation bombing campaign designed to topple Saddam and his "WMD" capabilities.

[Hollus]

Provide a source for that. Operation Desert Fox had absolutely nothing to do with invasion and occupation of Iraq. Assuming that the intelligence on Saddam's WMDs prior to Operation Desert Fox was accurate, Operation Desert Fox was justifiable and successful in reducing Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities to rubble. After Operation Desert Fox in 1998, the intelligence obtained prior to that could not be used as justification for another attack on Saddam Hussein, especially since senior Bush administration officials admitted even in early-to-mid 2001 that Saddam had been effectively defanged of his WMDs.

So it is you who must try again, or wake up to the fact that you are being grossly decieved by your government and news media.

Another rookie who doesn't do homework...see "Iraq Liberation Act", to wit:

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) [1] (codified in a note to 22 USCS § 2151) is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.

...President George W. Bush has often referred to the Act and its findings to argue that the Clinton Administration supported regime change in Iraq and further that it believed that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. The Act was cited as a basis of support in the Congressional Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq in October of 2002 (Public Law 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

In 1998, George Bush was still governor of Texas. Desert Fox was a four day decapitation bombing campaign designed to topple Saddam and his "WMD" capabilities.

The Iraqi Liberation Act authorized support of opposition to Saddam Hussiens regime. NOT removal of Saddam Hussiens regime. You can read the Iraqi Liberation Act for yourself and see that it consists of humanitarian assistance, the restriction of humanitarian assistance, and the authority to provide assistance to Iraqi democratic opposition organizations.

Far from dooming the regime as you say, the Act was designed to promote democratic opposition within Iraq. Much the same as is done in any State that does not fall in-line with American interests (like Venezuela for instance, H.RES.716.)

You are mistaking propaganda for fact.

[kuzadd]

oh riverwind....

Please...aluminium burns and melts.

'This is contrary to my experience. Aluminium does burn, and surprisingly (with relevance to the shuttle) it can do so in near-vacuum conditions. Several years ago, against the accepted knowledge of experts in the field, I devised a process that achieves this, operating at a pressure of around 10-3 millibars (0.1 pascals)."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1782...nium-burns.html

ROFLMAO!

absolutely clueless!

from riverwind's article

"In a large vacuum chamber, aluminium wire is continuously melted, vaporised, and burnt in a stream of oxygen, and deposits a coating of aluminium oxide onto a web of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film moving past at high speed from reel to reel. Counter-intuitively, the process even improves the vacuum through a "getter" effect, by mopping up any traces of water vapour present"

again aluminium wire is continuously melted, vaporised, and burnt in a stream of oxygen,

in a stream of oxygen

in a stream of oxygen

wrong again as usual!

and noticed you glossed right over it, of course.

[kuzadd]

ROTFL - you actually compare yourself to 'great thinkers'? You forget that the overwhelming majority of people who are dismissed as lunatics are _in fact_ lunatics. Only a small minority end up being proven right.

You also missed my point. I was simply stating a fact: the majority of people DO think truthies are raving lunatics. That is why the onus is on you to provide a credible alternate explaination. Why don't you admit that the only reason you refuse to provide one is because you can't?

clearly a greater thinker then you, that is obvious!

You missed the point, your statement PROVES nothing, except like I said, the masses will go along to get along and swallow any swill thrown at them by a "leader". Just like you do.

The onus was on the Bush administration, no matter how you contort and whine, it was up to them, they have sent people off to die in the 'war on terror' , for bogus reasons, not people who are questioning the official conspiracy theory.

editted to add:

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ from senior military officers, military intelligence, professors, engineers, archititects, pilots airtraffic controllers, surviving family members and even survivors of wtc themselves.

Lunatics all of them, and hey riverwind, why don't you tell those family members and firefighters , they are raving lunatics, or Doctor Francis A Boyle, or Professor Peter Dale Scott, or John McMurtry, PhD – Professor of Philosophy and University Professor Emeritus, University of Guelph.,or Richard Falk, JSD – Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University. In 2001 he served on the three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo.

or any of the other 100's and 100's and 100's of "lunatics" at that website.

You can't hold your own with me, you think you can discuss the numerous 9/11 anomolies with the big guns, who KNOW even more then I do,

Not a way in heck!

Like I said, your statement proves nothing, and your so blinded by BS , you can't grasp that.

and you KNOW that ,so you resort to the tactic of the weak, over and over, namecalling, smear.

[Riverwind]

The onus was on the Bush administration, no matter how you contort and whine, it was up to them, they have sent people off to die in the 'war on terror' , for bogus reasons, not people who are questioning the official conspiracy theory.

You are accusing Bush of being a mass murderer. The onus is on the accuser to make the case. You have not come close to making your case. Do you honestly believe that your so called 'evidence' against bush would stand up in a court of law?

You can't hold your own with me, you think you can discuss the numerous 9/11 anomolies with the big guns, who KNOW even more then I do,

Your 'anomolies' are inconclusive tripe and have been repeatly discredited by various posters. The only reason you think they have any relevance because you have deluded yourself into believing that you don't have the onus of proof.

Incidently - what gives YOU the right to decide what standard of evidence should apply to whom? I argue that the onus is on truthies because:

1) They are accusing people of being mass murderers

2) The storyline required to support their theories is incoherent and irrational