Wait a second?... How is it that I'm the one that's crazy, insane, delusional, and brainwashed?

Originally posted by Griff
What's to say the DHS won't become as corrupt and have pissing matches with the other 3-letter agencies?

"Corrupt" is a judgment call; at least in this case. Incapable, unable, etc.....may be more accurate. The level of bungling that is achieved by large bureaucracies is scary at times.

[edit on 1-1-2009 by MrPenny]

reply to post by fleabit

Sorry, not going to play juvenile games with you, you'll have to find some other fool to do that if that's what winds your clock.

Again, flea..., you chose me, you had to bud in, while I wasn't speaking to you.

*SNIP*

Other Fool?

Someone posting on this board has nothing in common with the other eyewitnesses who saw a plane collide with the Pentagon.

Except for the fact that they all claim to have seen a jet hit the Pentagon.

What is strange, is that you guys don't even want to distance yourself from Hunka.

What do you think his motives were to lie?

I'm just stunned that anyone can with a straight face, say that every single person who claimed to have seen a jet, or saw it fly into the side of the Pentagon, is lying or delusional.

Lying, yes. I didn't say they were delusional. I said Hunka's story was either a lie or a delusion.

Also eye-witness accounts mean jack.

I can show you lots of footage were eye-witnesses claim to have seen missiles instead of planes, heard explosions in the twin towers etc.

So according to your own logic, you have to believe those eye-witnesses to.

If I remember correctly, almost every eye-witnes that was on live tv on 911, was somehow affiliated with the MSM and government.

Back to the Pentagon, it's very easy and simple, I think someone posted a picture of the damaged Pentagon in this thread.

It's at page 7, SPreston's post. Great post, read it. Look at the hole!

Now tell me again a jumbo jet flew into it. Tell me with a straight face.

Other example, mayor Ernie Stull of Shanksville, where flight 93 allegedly crashed, said it himself, "There was no plane, just a hole in the ground"

Some time later he suddenly said that there was a plane and debris.

So, he was lying in one of those stories, but why would he lie the first time?

Also consider this: Of those who saw the event unfold, NONE came forward and said "I was watching the building, and I saw it explode, but I didn't see a jet at all when it happened." Wouldn't dozens have seen the actual unfolding of events? Why would NONE report the truth?

Like I said, a lot of witnesses did, but who would listen to them, I even remember seeing people talking about explosions, only to get cut off by the show host.

I think you are a prime example of an ignorant debunker, it just shows that you didn't do your research very well and that your belief in the official story is based on a lack of information and understanding.






Mod edit: Removed insult.

[edit on 1/1/2009 by Hal9000]

[edit on 1/1/09 by enigmania]

Killtown? The anti-semite who harassed Val McClatchey, posting her contact information on blogs. Calling her at her place of employment.

What? I didn't know Killtown was anti-semitic. Is there any proof of this? Val runs a business. Isn't her contact information public? I definitely want to hear about the "calling her" bit. I know that Jeff Hill, a researcher from Canada, called Val. I do not know of Killtown calling her. Can you provide me to the audio or anything/anyone that says he called her? Thanks.

You know, it really amazes me, how the “same”old bunch of disinfo run back, and forth repeating their same old lies, over, and over, and over, I cannot really believe theses people are that “ignorant.” I think they are in here to piss you all off! They probably have a crowd of people standing behind them in a classroom, taking “bets” and laughing their %#$^ off at us. I think this behavior disgusting, especially against people who are looking for real answers to what really happened on 911.

I find it disturbing that this same bunch will continue to use NIST, FEMA, and the 911 Commission Reports, as their bible of truth, when it has been proven a lie.
Do these people really think they are fooling someone?

The planes crash and burnt and brought down the WTC, the Government said so, I believe in every dripping word the Government tells me and they are my heroes they would never tell me a lie. I love President Bush, and you should to, he is a good man, he is a Christian, he would not hurt a fly, (my opinion he order a false flag operation and kill over 3,000 people on 911.) Our Government has our best interest at hart, for (We The People) President Bush was so concern about the attack on 911, that he order all investigations to stop and stonewalled every inquiry made by the mass of people asking questions, and we still don’t have any real answers to this day. However some people in here who cant believe our Government is capable of pulling of 911 are “Delusional” at best! Maybe they need to read:

Operation NorthWoods DECLASSIFIED

www.scribd.com...

Operation Northwoods

en.wikipedia.org...

OPERATION NORTHWOODS FALSE FLAG TERRORISM 911 DECLASSIFIED INSIDE JOB HISTORY economic collapse state of emergency dictator assassinate cuba baby boom 60s martial law bailout NAU EU NAFTA CAFTA tax taxes inflation bust suspended campaign oil blood money

www.youtube.com...

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

Subject: Justification for U.S. Military Intervention
in Cuba (TS)


1. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the attached
Memorandum for the Chief of Operations, Cuba Project, which
responds to a request of that office for brief but precise
description of pretexts which would provide justification
for US military intervention in Cuba.

www.ratical.org...


Perhaps, this might just wake theses people up! However if it doesn’t then we know they are just disinfo junkies, or playing their childish games on ATS.

reply to post by esdad71


Umm OBL hated the United States (and most Westerners) prior to the Gulf War.

They would ask, 'What are you doing in an Islamic country?" The BBC reporter John Simpson had a close call with bin Ladin himself outside Jalalabad in 1989. Travelling with a group of Arab mujahideen, Simpson and his television crew bumped into an Arab man beautifully dressed in spotless white robes; the man began shouting at Simpson's escorts to kill the infidels, then offered a truck driver the not unreasonable sum of five hundred dollars to do the job. Simpson's Afghan escort turned down the request, and bin Ladin was to be found later on a camp bed, weeping in frustration. Only when bin Ladin became a public figure, almost a decade later, did Simpson realise who the mysterious Arab was who had wanted him dead.

Holy War by Peter Bergen

...the handful of Americans who had heard of bin Ladin in the 1980's knew him mainly for his violently anti-American views. Dana Rohrabacher, now a Republican congressman from Orange County, California, told me about a trip he took with the mujihideen in 1987. At the time, Rohrabacher was a Reagan aide who delighted in taking long overland trips inside Afghanistan with anti-Communist forces. On one such trek, his guide told him not to speak English for the next few hours because they were passing by bin Ladin's encampment. Rohrabacher was told, "If he hears an American, he will kill you."

Disinformation by Richard Miniter

First, I know that OBL disliked the US prior to 9/11 but we are talking about 9/11. His rag tag warriors in affect defeated the The Big Bear Russia in Afghanistan and he wanted to do the same in Gulf War one.


Second, I am not using the 9/11 commission as a bible but it is something that anyone who has an opinion about 9/11 should read. It is not a politically biased writing, in fact, it does NOT paint the US in a good light.


Third, there will be corruption in any agency and that is not what this is about. It is about communication between these agencies so that if the CIA is watching someone in Berlin and they are tied to a cell that may be operating in Arizona, with effective communication they can be broken with FBI assitance. This is how the real world works.

Also, hey Griff, long time no talk. Hope you have a great New Years.

Back to the post, there are NO other buildings that were created in the same magnitude as the WTC. None. It is a unique design that WAS NOT created to withstand multiple hits from an aircraft. It was designed to hopefully stand long enough for evacuation in the case of a low speed hit by an aircraft if lost in fog. Those are the exact words of the designers. Look it up.


As far as the commission report, it was a bipartisan investigation on the why and how we could prevent further attacks. It came to the conclusion that

Its was that the failures of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation permitted the terrorist attacks to occur and that had these agencies acted more wisely and more aggressively, the attacks could potentially have been prevented.

It was not to exonerate anyone. These are the members of the committee.,


Thomas Kean (Chairman) - Republican, former Governor of New Jersey

Lee H. Hamilton (Vice Chairman) - Democrat, former U.S. Representative from the 9th District of Indiana

Richard Ben-Veniste - Democrat, attorney, former chief of the Watergate Task Force of the Watergate Special Prosecutor's Office

Fred F. Fielding - Republican, attorney and former White House Counsel
Jamie Gorelick - Democrat, former Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration
Slade Gorton - Republican, former U.S. Senator from Washington

Bob Kerrey - Democrat, President of the New School University and former U.S. Senator from Nebraska

John F. Lehman - Republican, former Secretary of the Navy

Timothy J. Roemer - Democrat, former U.S. Representative from the 3rd District of Indiana

James R. Thompson - Republican, former Governor of Illinois

The members of the commission's staff included:
Philip D. Zelikow, Executive Director/Chair
Christopher Kojm, Deputy Executive Director
Daniel Marcus, General Counsel
Janice Kephart, Counsel
Al Felzenberg, Spokesman

Mr Kean was actually upset with the information that was provided by the FAA and the FBI so it was not written to give everyone a pass. Check out the book "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission"

No holograms, no explosives and no conspiracy. Trust me, I am not happy with the fact that the government was not on top of this but it was also a matter of our countries resources not bieng used properly with the previous administration who had multiple times to pull the trigger and kill OBL.

Look into Operation Bojinka, which was conceived in the mid 90's. There are the flight schools they attended in Florida. There are the DL's for the state of Florida as well as rental and bank records. These terrorists were real.

Well, that is all for now. I have to go sweep my house to make sure that black van parked down the street did not sneak in when i went to the store..

PS - To Cashlink ,the guy with the Poodle and Deniro picture in his avatar, please do not call me delusional since I have a view different from you. I am trying to keep this civil but you have to imply who I am. I am not a bible thumping conservative with a picture of Bush above my bed. I am simply am educated individual with an opinion on what was posted here. Is it so hard for you to step back and look at three sides of this story....Yours, mine and the truth?

[edit on 1-1-2009 by esdad71]

[edit on 1-1-2009 by esdad71]

reply to post by esdad71

Back to the post, there are NO other buildings that were created in the same magnitude as the WTC. None. It is a unique design that WAS NOT created to withstand multiple hits from an aircraft.

Multiple hits? Each tower got hit one time, remember?

And even if the building failed because of the damage, how did it pulverize floor to floor, nearing free fall speed?

Please say pancake.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Considering no modern steel structure has ever totally collapsed due to fire, I would say it's statistically impossible for 2 skyscrapers, being struck at different heights and angles by 2 airliners, to collapse in an hour or so due to fire in the exact same manner and at nearly the maximum velocity a free fall would grant.

I have always wondered why people always mentioned "no modern steel structure had ever totally collapsed due to fire" argument.

Because it's true. en.wikipedia.org...
This is after 911 but hey, it's a building on fire.

raging fire: check
total collapse: did not happen

(obviously there are other cases, but one should do for now)

No other modern steel structure had ever been hit by a fueled, high speed airliner EITHER.

Actually there has been an accident before. It wasn't an airliner I give you that, but it was a bomber. Here you go: en.wikipedia.org... scroll down to "1945 plane crash".

Fire: check
Structural damage: check
Collapse: did not happen

It wasn't just the damage and it wasnt just the fire, it was BOTH. How hard is that to understand???

We are told the fire weakened the steel structure, so I assume that without the fire the towers would still stand, right?

As for the "software comment" you just do not get it.

Why? Care to elaborate or you are just going to say I don't get it?

But keep adding details that make it more complicated of a scenario.

It's actually easier and stealthier than "miles of wires".
And again I'm just speculating (after all i didn't pull it off), going against the argument that the only way to demolish a building with explosives requires "miles of wires".
Details are good arguments when trying to prove something would work, you should be glad I actually mention them for you and don't just say "you don't get it".

Does not change the fact that your idea is too technically complicated to be sure of success.

Technically complicated does not equal impossible. And complicated for who? Me? You? A bunch of engineers or demo experts?

Originally posted by esdad71

Back to the post, there are NO other buildings that were created in the same magnitude as the WTC. None. It is a unique design that WAS NOT created to withstand multiple hits from an aircraft. It was designed to hopefully stand long enough for evacuation in the case of a low speed hit by an aircraft if lost in fog. Those are the exact words of the designers. Look it up.

Sorry but you are wrong: www.truveo.com...

Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management, explains how the Twin Towers were "designed" to withstand the impact of a "fully-loaded Boeing 707." He also goes on to say that each of the Twin Towers would "probably sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door: this intense grid; and, the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing this screen netting; it really does nothing to the screen netting."

[edit on 2-1-2009 by Raytracer]

reply to post by esdad71

Second, I am not using the 9/11 commission as a bible but it is something

No one said you where! Why are you defending yourself?

but it is something that anyone who has an opinion about 9/11 should read

Ya, and just leave it as an “opinion,” however, it contains little facts.

Third, there will be corruption in any agency and that is not what this is about.

Who are you trying to con here? It is about the “CORRUPTIONS”! You are still trying your best to delude the reader in here, If it wasn’t for the *^#$&* Corruption 911 would not have happened!

It is about communication between these agencies so that if the CIA is watching someone in Berlin and they are tied to a cell that may be operating in Arizona, with effective communication they can be broken with FBI assitance. This is how the real world works.

Why don’t “you” tell us how the real world is? Obviously, no one in here knows but you.
It is my opinion in this real world, there was no break down of communications. It is my “opinion” the CIA and the FBI took the fall for the Bush administration as a break down of communications, funny how no one was fired for not doing their job of protecting our Country, no infact, just the opposite, these hard working FBI and CIA where promoted.
Break down of communication my *&^#.

It is a unique design that WAS NOT created to withstand multiple hits from an aircraft.

This is a lie! And you have not done any research you are making false claims as usual.

Statements by Engineers
Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.
John Skilling
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8.
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3
A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

911research.wtc7.net...

Government-Funded Investigators Accused Of WTC Cover-Up
The American Society of Civil Engineers - an organization that was funded by FEMA to investigate the collapse of the twin towers on 9/11 - has been accused of engaging in a cover-up to protect the government, with critics charging the organization falsified conclusions that skyscrapers could not withstand getting hit by airplanes.

www.propagandamatrix.com...

It was designed to hopefully stand long enough for evacuation in the case of a low speed hit by an aircraft if lost in fog. Those are the exact words of the designers. Look it up.

This is yet another attempt to delude the readers here you make statement as usual and most of the time you don’t back them up or site your sources. Your statement is wrong!

Also according to Robertson, the WTC towers were “in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.”[24]
Not only were the towers designed to survive plane crashes, they were designed to potentially survive multiple plane crashes. This fact is supported by Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 2001:
“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”[25]

arabesque911.blogspot.com...

As far as the commission report, it was a bipartisan investigation on the why and how we could prevent further attacks. It came to the conclusion that

Obviously you have not read the report! Or you wouldn’t have wrote that ridiculous statement. Please! Everyone know the Commission report was a JOKE! It was a WHITE WASH! Garbage Lies Cover up! Call it what you want, however it is an embarrassment to this Country.

Mr Kean was actually upset with the information that was provided by the FAA and the FBI so it was not written to give everyone a pass.

No it wasn’t written because they were lying so much and couldn’t keep their stories straight and common sense tells me Mr Kean wanted to dig a little, and I would not be surprised that Kean was told “not” to by the Bush Administration.
However this is my opinion.

No holograms, no explosives and no conspiracy. Trust me, I am not happy with the fact that the government was not on top of this but it was also a matter of our countries resources not bieng used properly with the previous administration who had multiple times to pull the trigger and kill OBL.

I do not trust you, and this is your opinion nothing more however, I will present “you” some facts to your argument.

Eyewitness Accounts
Eyewitnesses Recalled Explosions, No Alarms or Sprinklers
The collapses of the Twin Towers were witnessed firsthand by scores of people, most of them emergency responders. The majority of those accounts have been suppressed by the state for years. In August of 2005, the New York Times published the single largest and most authoritative body of eyewitness evidence yet assembled, as a result of winning a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. 1 Another body of evidence, which we have yet to examine, is a set of recordings of calls processed by the 911 system on the day of 9/11/01 and released in 2006

I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.

The chief of safety of the fire department of New York City told me he recieved word of the possibility of a secondary device: that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place and according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted within the building.

911research.wtc7.net...

I would expect you to hand wave the fact, as you always do.

Look into Operation Bojinka, which was conceived in the mid 90's. There are the flight schools they attended in Florida. There are the DL's for the state of Florida as well as rental and bank records. These terrorists were real.

You can keep your head in the sand if you believe that.
PS - To Cashlink ,the guy with the Poodle and Deniro picture in his avatar, please do not call me delusional since I have a view different from you.

But it is ok for “you” to ridicule, and insult, and spin, and lie, and belittle people who do not like your strange views.

Is it so hard for you to step back and look at three sides of this story....Yours, mine and the truth?

There is only two sides of the 911 Story the Truth and the Lie. I stand for the truth, and deny ignorance.













[edit on 1/2/2009 by cashlink]

What do you know? ...Other that you don't know nothing. Without a alternate and viable scenario for what happened, you have zero credibility nor any reason to print anything worth reading, thanks for wasting my time.

Originally posted by MrPenny
"Corrupt" is a judgment call; at least in this case. Incapable, unable, etc.....may be more accurate. The level of bungling that is achieved by large bureaucracies is scary at times.

Hence my point. Why not overhaul the existing agencies to better be able to do their job instead of creating another large bureaucracy to bungle more things?

reply to post by Raytracer


Ah yes, at some point I knew that someone would mention the B-25 smacking into the Empire State Building. Bringing up that event, only shows that you really do not know what you are talking about. The only comparisions between the two are "skyscraper" and "airplane" Other than that, there is nothing else comparable. The construction of the buildings is completely different, the ESB is more solidly constructed building than the Towers were. And comparing the bee sting of a B-25 at landing speed to the smack of a much larger, much faster airliner would be laughable in any other circumstances.

reply to post by Griff


Because it doesnt give the politicians the cover of being able to say "See, we did something". Most Americans wouldnt understand if you said we are going to overhaul the existing agencies to improve their interaction. But if you point to a shiny new building and say, in this building, these bureaucrats oversee everything....that makes people happy.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


I can't tell you how much I agree with you.

BTW, Happy New Year esdad and everyone else.

Swampfox, are you still oversees? If so, keep safe.



[edit on 1/2/2009 by Griff]

reply to post by Griff


Nope, Im home right now. Air Guard handles their deployments a lot differently than the active duty folks. Happy New Year.

reply to post by Raytracer


Key words in your quote... "would probably sustain". Yes the designers designed a building that they THOUGHT would withstand an impact from a slow moving airliner. They were wrong. Do we need to start a discussion on all the times in history where designers/engineers (sorry Griff) THOUGHT they had designed something that could handle anything....and were wrong?

Almost forgot.....Mr DeMartini actually went up in one of the towers that day to inspect the damage, supposedly some of his last words were a concern the building was going to collapse. He died when it did.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Raytracer

 

Ah yes, at some point I knew that someone would mention the B-25 smacking into the Empire State Building. Bringing up that event, only shows that you really do not know what you are talking about. The only comparisions between the two are "skyscraper" and "airplane" Other than that, there is nothing else comparable. The construction of the buildings is completely different, the ESB is more solidly constructed building than the Towers were. And comparing the bee sting of a B-25 at landing speed to the smack of a much larger, much faster airliner would be laughable in any other circumstances.

You said it never happened before, so that was my response to that.
Anyway you cherry picked this piece of info on a much larger post, same old tactic I guess ^^
Mi point was and still is that you can demolish a building without "miles of wires"

reply to post by Raytracer


Name one demolition company that does its work like that. Name ONE that uses your wireless system. Or do you believe that it would be a bunch of amatuers setting up the demolition? Cause the pros will all tell you that something like that would leave too much to chance. Besides, you are STILL talking about thousands of individual charges that would have to have a receiver with them in order to pull it off.

Or do we dig up how long it would take to place the thousands of charges need to drop three buildings? Because a 10 story building would take a month or so and we are talking a cumulative 267 story job.......and NO ONE noticed???

And besides I said no other modern building had been stuck by a high speed, fully fueled airliner....a B-25 at low speed is not an airliner. My point holds.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]