Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: kwakakev

With the scale of the deception around 9/11 much critical information is still locked up under national security.

Would you like to list a few examples?

Which is it? Is it locked up to be kept secret? Or is there and active deception?

The pilots for 9/11 truth website looks like a bare shell of what it use to be, all locked up.

It’s called lack of donations, being debunked, they killed their own credibility, and being exposed for exploiting 9/11.

Example

www.metabunk.org/debunked-pilots-for-9-11-truth-wtc-speeds.t2942/

www.metabunk.org...

The claim from Pilots for 9/11 truth is that the Egypt Air 767 broke up at 22,000 feet whilst descending at Mach 0.99, an EAS (Equivalent Air Speed) significantly less than the EAS postulated for, particularly UA FL175 as it approached the South Tower.

The NTSB report however does not state that the aircraft broke up at 22,000 feet. As the aircraft was descending both engines were shut down by the Relief First Officer, the person suspected of deliberately crashing the 767 (disputed by the Egyptians but not germane to the discussion), and the aircraft was still intact as it went through 17000 feet when both the FDR and CVR lost power due to the engine shutdown. Radar returns then have the aircraft climbing to 25,000 feet where it began another descent, apparently intact till it crashed into the ocean.

At no point in the NTSB report is it suggested that the aircraft broke up in flight.

It not that people question. But it’s sickening when people fall for hacks and charlatans like Pilots for 9/11 truth that is disheartening.

a reply to: kwakakev

A good read for you

www.metabunk.org/jonexarmy-and-escaping-the-rabbit-hole.t10400/

www.metabunk.org...

Jon's embrace of my book (and simply having me on his show) alarmed some of his followers. Some of them even though he had been bought out and had "flipped sides." But I think he's simply recognized from reading Metabunk (and later the book) that he'd been focussing too much on one side of the argument and only looking for information that supported his beliefs. Now he's planning on taking a more balanced approach.

a reply to: kwakakev

You cannot have it both way. You cannot claim digging for the truth while tolerating and turning a blind eye to the blatant lies and omissions of the truth movement.

The desperation for a smoking gun, and the inability to police itself killed the truth movement. Has nothing to do with getting too close to the truth.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

It is unlikely I will find this pilots name anytime soon. What I do remember of the report, It was the heat of battle, two towers and pentagon hit, everyone was expecting more strikes. Some how word got out about a flight headed to white house. With most of the crew away on training exercises elsewhere in the country and time critical the pilot just jumps in his plane and goes, without clearing it first. He finds the likely subject with all the chaotic reports going on and engages it. In all due respects this pilot is also a hero with the initiative he showed in the heat of battle.

Unfortunately, all was not as it seamed that day. If he did try an clear it first through proper channels he would of been told to sit back down. With an operation the size of 9/11, it was expected some things would not go exactly to plan. A information propaganda mill was ready for any unexpected events to help churn it into the version of official events we have today.

I am not 100% certain this is how it all it went. It is a guess that fits within reference of the other puzzle pieces.

a reply to: kwakakev

Why don’t you want to talk about AE 9/11 Truth’s help taking in over $300,000 in donations for the two year WTC 7 Evaluation that is now in its fourth year?

a reply to: kwakakev

It is unlikely I will find this pilots name anytime soon

Of course not. The truth movement is kept alive by innuendo. State an actual fact, then it’s open to debunking.

a reply to: neutronflux

Would you like to list a few examples?

A map of flight 93 debris field would help resolve lingering questions about it. It may not have where every little piece was found, but it will contain the final location of the main parts and general area of the scattered smaller remains. I have been looking for such information and it is not easy to find.

Which is it? Is it locked up to be kept secret? Or is there and active deception?

Now, now. I cannot take all the fun away from it, deception? Which way to go??? hmmm....

It not that people question. But it’s sickening when people fall for hacks and charlatans like Pilots for 9/11 truth that is disheartening.

Just as bad as the hacks on ATS huh? Sure there was garbage on that site, there is garbage every where. There where also a lot of liked minded individuates with a lot of information and resources to share as well. As for what Pilots for 9/11 truth is now, reminds me of a concentration camp.

a reply to: neutronflux

Why don’t you want to talk about AE 9/11 Truth’s help taking in over $300,000 in donations for the two year WTC 7 Evaluation that is now in its fourth year?

We could also talk about the multi million dollar annual salary for the NIST team investigating 9/11 that still screwed it up. Well, they done their best in trying to cover it up and not even look at how the building fell, just how it started. They done good with their big pile of blue books at the end, very intimidating for anyone to question.

a reply to: kwakakev

One. Would you care to cite the posts concerning flight 93 debris in this thread. The issue has been addressed. For you to act like it hasn’t is disingenuous.

Two. So? No examples of major deceptions. Your winning your argument with riveting and compelling evidence.

Three. Quote where I have posted “garbage” on ATS. Most of the garage posted on ATS comes from citing the con artist of the truth movement.

Four. I never trusted the government. And post any credible evidence from AE 9/11 Truth that something other than fire and thermal stresses brought down the WTC. How about Richard Gages fizzle no flash bombs?

Again. I know the government cannot be trusted. But you cannot call out the lies of the truth movement? Sad. The truth movement failed because it wouldn't purge itself of con artists and charlatans.

a reply to: kwakakev

One. Would you care to cite the posts concerning flight 93 debris in this thread. The issue has been addressed. For you to act like it hasn’t is disingenuous.

Two. So? No examples of major deceptions. Your winning your argument with riveting and compelling evidence.

Three. Quote where I have posted “garbage” on ATS. Most of the garage posted on ATS comes from citing the con artist of the truth movement.

Four. I never trusted the government. And post any credible evidence from AE 9/11 Truth that something other than fire and thermal stresses brought down the WTC. How about Richard Gages fizzle no flash bombs?

Again. I know the government cannot be trusted. But you cannot call out the lies of the truth movement? Sad. The truth movement failed because it wouldn't purge itself of con artists and charlatans.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

You cannot have it both way. You cannot claim digging for the truth while tolerating and turning a blind eye to the blatant lies and omissions of the truth movement.

The desperation for a smoking gun, and the inability to police itself killed the truth movement. Has nothing to do with getting too close to the truth.

He cannot claim to be digging for truth while just making stuff up, but that's Truthers for you - only interested in the "truth" that they want to believe

a reply to: neutronflux

1/ I never claimed to have all the answers concerning flight 93 when I started this thread. Since the topic came up I have provided my best assessment from the information I have gone through. I have noted that without state support, there will be many unanswered and remaining questions.

2/ Now we are getting some where. Great thing about deception, we don't see it. Good to see you at least tried started looking, keep it up. When we find it, its usually something small at first, does not make sense or quite add up right. There is always a reason. Keep pulling on that thread and before you know it the whole thing unravels and we can see again.

3/ I never said you posted garbage, but if that is how you take it then maybe in yourself you know you can do better. Just go though at any big collection of data, some good, some bad.

4/ I have called out crap when I see. Planes hit the building. The work of Richard Gage has been the closest I have come across by anyone to make sense of the twin towers demise.

Again, if you are looking for superman to come in and save the day with one big phat truth bomb, ain't going to happen until the state wants it too.

a reply to: mrthumpy

He cannot claim to be digging for truth while just making stuff up, but that's Truthers for you - only interested in the "truth" that they want to believe

Well how do you get through life? Have you got a pre programmed script to do all your thinking for you?

a reply to: kwakakev

Funny, I can find his name with no issues. Colonel Rick Gibney of the North Dakota Air National Guard, is the pilot that the "truth" movement say shot down Flight 93. Most times, the "truth" movement will even post a video of an awards ceremony where truther claim he was decorated for shooting down Flight 93. But, as usual, the "truth" movement failed to do basic research.

In the words of Col Rick Gibney himself...

dod.defense.gov...

Now, back to you, so you can accuse Col Gibney of lying.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: mrthumpy

He cannot claim to be digging for truth while just making stuff up, but that's Truthers for you - only interested in the "truth" that they want to believe

Well how do you get through life? Have you got a pre programmed script to do all your thinking for you?

lol You're STILL not getting it

a reply to: kwakakev

The only "fog of war" that lingers, is with members who believe the loony stories they read on the internet about 9/11. The rest of us, ran down the reality of each of the conspiracy claims long ago.

a reply to: kwakakev

The work of Richard Gage has been the closest I have come across by anyone to make sense of the twin towers demise.

How. There is zero evidence the WTC was brought down by planted pyrotechnics. None.

I like the truth movement claim no evidence that fires were hot enough to damage the steel? Then claim thermite was used, which burns at over 3000 degrees Fahrenheit, to bring down the WTC? Which is it? No fires hot enough to damage the steel? Or 3000 degree fires fueled by thermite. What a bunch of contradictory idiots.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: kwakakev

The only "fog of war" that lingers, is with members who believe the loony stories they read on the internet about 9/11.

And others just inventing stuff like " This does not happen when a fully intact airplane hits the ground."

a reply to: neutronflux

With the last of the fires in the clean taking up to 3 months to finally get under control, it is one indications that thermite was used. Finding thermite chips in the dust it is also a strong indication thermite was used. There are other indicators like the pyroclastic cloud and the effects this had going down the streets, instantly oxidizing cars that came in contact with this intense energy source. Then there is also the charred remains of the people caught in the pyroclastic cloud, frozen in time, it hit some of them real quick.

You come across as some one obviously up to speed on a lot of the controversy around 9/11. How do you comprehend the twin tower buildings coming down?

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

With the last of the fires in the clean taking up to 3 months to finally get under control, it is one indications that thermite was used.

You do spout some utter rubbish. Where did you get the idea that something that BURNS VERY QUICKLY would still be burning 3 months later?

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever - not that you care about that