Howard Stern Show talks 9/11 truth (sort of)

No, I don't think Craig is 'not to be trusted.' He is going about things the right way. It's not about credibility.

Just be careful of what you think you 'know.' Some people 'know' the Earth was created in 7 days. A few 'know' they are the reincarnation of Jesus Christ and have messages for mankind. Everyone used to 'know' the Earth is flat, and 'know' powered heavier-than-air flight will always be impossible. They had evidence. They could 'prove' it.

Craig 'knows' the Pentagon attack was a government psi-op. It's not a matter of trust. It's about having a little bit of testimony or evidence and extrapolating a big scenario from that, when we need to realize that ALL the aspects have to be explained in convincing detail to make any alternative explanation work in the real world.

Like where exactly is AA77? How to explain the passenger remains and luggage debris recovered by rescue workers and returned to the families? Have you reviewed these personal effects from the site and now in the possession of the families? Can you explain why a number of witnesses SAW AA77 fly into the building? Just because you have not interviewed these people or they have no wish to talk to you, does not mean they don't exist, or that they were decieved in seeing AA77 strike The Pentagon. Maybe they don't want to deal with you, but they might be in a court of law if it ever comes to that and you may then need to deal with this contradictory testimony. Some are currently on record, some may not be (2 witnesses I met in April wanted privacy, had no desire to be on the public record and had so far given no formal witness statement).

Craig may be right about this. He may not be. He may be overlooking something, ignoring things, disrgarding something he doesn't consider important but is. Maybe these 12 witnesses Craig is talking about were looking at a different aircraft, not AA77 which struck the building. Maybe they got something else wrong. Not to admit these aspects are unresolved is a kind of self-deception. We all 'know' we're right about our pet theory (especially here on these boards where people can be so passionate and intransigent) but of course we can't all be right can we?

Again I say, beware of what you think you 'know.' This is a big subject with a lot of aspects. They all need explaining.

Especially AA77 and its whereabouts. It's a big thing to lose, and the evidence it crashed there is fairly strong and contradicts what Craig is now claiming, so this must be reconciled and explained.

reply to post by bovarcher

---

Just to clarify, I have not had the time to look through Craig's theory. I was very sincere when I said that I was glad people we're demanding evidence. My point was that we should make those demands about all claims, regardless of where they come from. I do not believe Craig's theory. Not because I think its wrong, but because I haven't looked at the evidence to back it up. If he refuses to give up that evidence, then I put very little stock into what he says (not that I'm asserting he would).

I feel the same about our government. The give me a story about what happened on 9-11, and when I ask to see the evidence, they say I need to just trust them. Well, seeing as how they have lied to me over and over in the past, and that they had a motive to commit the attack, I don't believe them. I think this is a perfectly unbiased way to approach the issue.

Yet person after person will demand evidence from 9-11 truthers (rightfully so) and the whole heartedly believe the governments story. It makes no sense. Also, in order for me to trust anyone on this issue, they have to release all of the evidence they have. If only certain pieces of evidence are released (like the government has done) it give no credibility because they could be withholding evidence that disagrees with their side of the story. This is especially true because there is no legitimate reason given whatsoever as to why they can't release the evidence.

The evidence is "fairly strong?" It never happened! There were NO passenger remains or luggage debris recovered by anyone.

As CNN's Jamie McIntyre reported, there's NO evidence that Flight 77 crashed anywhere near the Pentagon:

VIDEO: CNN Reported That No Plane Hit the Pentagon

external image

• Check out this shockwave video file of a clip from CNN coverage on the morning of 9/11. CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre says he inspected the Pentagon site and it's obvious that no plane crashed there.

• Clip archived by TheWebFairy.com; from a DVD available on MaeBrussel.com. Transcript by Total911.info:

JAMIE MCINTYRE: "From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

Even though, if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon, you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed."


BTW, it's disgusting that a debunker would use a Buddha avatar.


[edit on 12-6-2008 by GoldenFleece]

I provided a link in the 11th post on page 5 of this thread. That link takes you to a thread from last year in which you rolled out the PentaCon. Both quotes are in that thread. The link takes you to the exact page where the "we're taking this to the authorities" claim is made by you. The "grand jury" quote is only several post after the first.

What gives?

They are busy spinning and twisting what people tell them, they dont have time for silly things like Grand Juries and authorities.

Yes, we are all familiar with this short and selective soundbite from McIntyre's much longer report. The full report can be accessed from this page:

www.911myths.com...

or from the CNN archive, but at 40mb it is rather large. You can get a sound-only MP3 version which is much smaller.

The short soundbite you have posted is of McIntyre responding to a question from the studio anchor reporting that someone claimed the plane crashed short of the building, on the lawn, rather than actually hit the Pentagon and penetrated inside. McIntyre responds that there is no evidence of the plane crashing 'near' the building, but that it crashed directly into it and therefore most of the debris can be seen (and is filmed) INSIDE, not outside the building.

You may in all innocence have seen only this short, clipped sondbite cut from the 40-minute report, which is edited deliberately to make the casual viewer, who can't be bothered to watch the whole report or do any real research, to think there was 'no plane.'

This manipulation of evidence to fool the gullible is a common tactic employed by some '9/11 Truthers' who have no interest in 'truth' of any kind, but push a political agenda. Unfortunately, this is why the 'movement' is so laughed at and derided in the popular consciousness and until more honesty is employed the marginalization of the 'truth movement' will continue.

BTW McIntyre goes on to say:

Referring to the idea that something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon, McIntyre stated, “Having been there on September 11th, having seen the plane wreckage and photographed it myself personally, I can tell you that’s nonsense…I had a camera with me, I took pictures of some of the wreckage, some of the parts of the fuselage of …a part of the cockpit, until they told us we had to move back away from the scene…”

Catherder started what turned out to be the longest ATS thread of all time on this very subject. You can read it here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

You will see that a lot of AA77 wreckage was filmed indide The Pentagon immediately following the impact, including the heavier engineered parts like the undercarriage and engines which survived the impact and fires in recognizable form.

This thread is still alive. Weedwhacker, BTW, is one of several professional airline pilots amongst the ATS membership. In his case, he lives in Arlington, knew Charles Burlingame and was a personal friend of David Charlebois. He attended Mr. Charlebois' funeral where the remains were interred. So go convince him that the man whose remains they buried is not dead, or is somewhere else.

Some images of AA77 following the impact are also available here:

rense.com...

BTW, it's disgusting that a debunker would use a Buddha avatar.

You're new around here, but should be aware that vindictive personal comments of this nature are against this site's T+C. So if you don't want to get yourself formally warned by the mods, and then banned, I would be careful if I were you.