Concluding that 9/11 is a Government Conspiracy is Grotesque

"In this they proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others; yes, even when enlightened on the subject, they will long doubt and waver, and continue to accept at least one of these causes as true. Therefore, something of even the most insolent lie will always remain and stick – a fact which all the great lie-virtuosi and lying-clubs in this world know only too well and also make the most treacherous use of."
~ Adolf Hitler, on, ironically "The Big Lie"

reply to post by spacevisitor


You need to read the polls' results, and especially the questions, VERY carefully.

For instance, one of the results you posted, the 84% figure...question was specific to whether the Government is covering pre-knowledge of INTELLIGENCE warning of an impending terrorist attack threat.

You CANNOT infer that means the poll participants ALSO think that the entire thing was an inside jobby-job!

AS TO covering the failure of intel, look also to the Clinton Administration. It's interesting to read about former National Security Advisor 'Sandy' Berger, and his theft of some documents from the National Archives, documents that implicate the failures of some in the Clinton era to see the warning signs.

I did a quick grab of more poll data:

By THOMAS HARGROVE

Scripps Howard News Service

More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.
The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be.

See? Those respondents thought that some federal officials "assisted" in the attacks. Was that how the question was worded? Is that as vague to you, as it is to me???

Oh, wait....the over 33% are grouped together...they ALL either think there was direct involvement and "assistance", or there was inaction...but it is not further broken down into sub-categories. Why not? Does it wish to make a certain point, to sway people's opinions?

THEN, it tries to argue that, because over half "personally are more angry" than they used to be, it somehow connects. What about other reasons to be angry at the government?? There are sure a lot of them.....

Polls are interesting, but they cut both ways if used incorrectly.

I thought I should post this link, a pilots opinion. It is just one of the many imponderables that keep popping up, and I don't understand why these things get brushed under the carpet by closed minds. He may be wrong, but what if he is right? there are no suggestions given, merely a pilot's opinion.

video.google.com...#

reply to post by smurfy


Russ Wittenburg?

He's over at P4T.

I have about as much time in the same airplanes, and I tell you he's full of it.

Those guys new the fundamentals of how to push buttons, to operate the AutoFlight systems. I could show you, too.

reply to post by weedwhacker
Hi Weed, see my locale, I don't have a clue as to what a P4T is...maybe a trainer aircraft? joking aside, you have to expand on that. Two commercial pilots one called Weedwhacker, and the other called Russ-full-of-the-brown-stuff...If I go to America, can I fly my own 'plane, please!

reply to post by smurfy




Sorry, attention was being diverted, I finished up the post rather quickly.

"P4T" is just shorthand for Pilots for Truth. I actually joined, though I don't post there, once I saw the level of discourse. But, I should not speak of other forums.

There are various other 'Truther'...groups, within their own niches of expertise, "Architects & Engineers for Truth", "Patriots for Truth" (I think...names and labels may vary, but you get the idea).

Point is, in my opinion, they represent an extremely tiny minority, even within the designated fields.

However, addressing Capt. Wittenberg's opinion: He has his, I have mine.

Contextually, it seems to me that sometimes a statement or an expressed opinion is made, and recorded for posterity, and the person involved may later change their mind --- but, the nature of our world today is, once it's out there, it never gets taken back.

I'm trying to say that, given Capt. Wittenberg's position as claimed, when he claimed it, he may not have been aware of the simulator training the Saudi terrorist pilots received, training to become familiar, if not expert of course, in the operation of JUST ENOUGH of the functions of what is called the Flight Director, and of course, the Autopilot. (They are integrated together as a system, termed "Autoflight" sometimes).

He tossed out pilot-specific terms, like "Lateral Navigation" and "Vertical Navigation"...abbreviated 'LNAV' and 'VNAV' to us....and hinted that no one could possibly understand them, and how to operate the controls.

Well, the suicide pilots were not novices, three had Commercial licenses. SO, those 'basics' of flying are covered. Next, just orientation in the cockpit layout, what to look for, and where to find it. After that, it's really just using a computer...pushing buttons, knowing how to program what you want to achieve.

Heck, there are hobbyists who have entire websites devoted to this stuff as well, "armchair wannabe" pilots you could say. SO, me sitting here telling you has no real 'authority', since I may have seen it on the web...except, I can go into far greater detail, as a bona fide, than what you'll see on the web. It's the sort of thing, though, that's far easier to show, than to write about.

I see you're in bonny Ireland (I have an Irish name, I do!)

There is a TV show, I suppose it's shown all over nowadays, called "Mythbusters"...they just did a test to see if the two guys could land a jetliner. Without help? No, they both crashed. BUT, they were successful with help just from a guy on the "radio", who could not see them, but had to rely on what they told him, and he (the pilot) then told them what to do. Of course, they used a simulator.

With help, they both landed successfully.

SO....suicide terrorists? Don't have to be able to take-off or land, just the easiest part...steer.

As I said, I could show just about anybody. Could take an hour, maybe less, maybe more. Depends on a person's ability to retain the information.
_____________________________________________________________

edit t add:

Because It had been awhile since I'd seen that video snippet.

A few things I didn't mention yet, that shows how misinformed of the DETAILS Capt Wittenberg is:

He talks about "High speed-high banked" turns. Nothing seen in the two recovered SSFDRs (Flight Recorders --- aka 'black boxes') shows what he mentions. Even Hani Hanjour, in AA 77 (the worst of the four, it is said...HE did not have a Commercial license).

HE is the one who was a very poor pilot, in the sense that when he tried to rent the Cessna 172 that was mentioned, he was deemed inadequate. I've mentioned this before, in other theads. When you wish to rent an airplane, it isn't like a car rental...you have to fly with a Flight Instructor who "Checks" you. Hanjour was either very rusty, had never flown the 172 before, or was really poor at basic landings. IF he had never flown the 172, it does 'feel' different in landings, there are variations between all airplanes. ALSO, and I have been there, back in my youth as a Flight Instructor, sometimes you just don't like someone...AND if they fly poorly, you won't sign them off. It's YOUR butt on the line if you do, and they bend the airplane.

Anyway, Hanjour, in AA 77, is pointed at by "Truthers" as having done the "impossible"...which, in reality, is to have simply made a normal turn of a nearly 360 degree circle, at normal bank angles that never exceeded about 30 degrees, while descending at a normal rate and at a normal airspeed. It's on the Flight Recorder visual re-creation videos.

Unfortunately for Capt. Wittenberg, NONE of the four hijacked airplanes were flown in the manner he seems to think they were. He mentioned "five to seven Gs"??? Well, yes, IF they had flown that way, YES there would have been structural damage to the airplanes before impact. In fact, at over 5 Gs, most people begin to black out.

The other favorite claim made is about the speeds. Again, the AA 77 video shows airspeeds quite normal, until the final seconds when the speed builds up in a shallow dive. Same with some videos of UA 175, as it approaches the Towers. We don't have the Recorders, but in the videos you see the change in altitude. At last split second, UA 175 is banked a little harder to the left, looks like he was about 35 degrees, maybe 37. ALL perfectly acceptable, and witin the airplane's limits.

UA 93 was the most aerobatic, I suppose...but it crashed less than a second after going inverted.

[edit on 10 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Hi Weed, see my locale,

I don't have a clue as to what a P4T is...maybe a trainer aircraft?

joking aside, you have to expand on that. Two commercial pilots one called Weedwhacker, and the other called Russ-full-of-the-brown-stuff...If I go to America, can I fly my own 'plane, please!

There is a Pat and Mike in every country. In the USA we pack them into one guy. Kiss the stone for me Smurf.
Thanks for your input on the 911 tradedies.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by bsbray11

Let me offer some examples as a reminder of how much the US gov cares about us and how open and honest they always are with us.

While a thoughful and well-written treatise, I don't think it is valid to compare all those disparate examples, and somehow leap to the inevitable conclusion that 9/11 was "pre-planned" in its entirety.

Excuse me weedwhacker, but you are putting words in my mouth and completely misconstruing my post.

I was responding to the idea that the US government loves and cares about us all so much that no part of it could have possibly had any criminal involvement with 9/11. I do not understand how someone could be so naive as to dismiss such a horrible potential out of hand, given all of the examples I listed. That was the point of my post.

Anything about all of those malicious things the US government (especially military and intelligence) PROVING that 9/11 was an inside job, that was all only in your own head.

I wonder though, is it easier to misconstrue an argument when you just WANT to say anything contradictory to it?

I suppose you support everything any president at any time has ever done then in this country. Also any war that has been fought. You probably think Congress is doing an outstanding job as well. If you agree with the official story that even some of the official investigators don't believe then go ahead. Your entitled to your belief.

You have your beliefs. They have theirs. No-one's outing you for believing the "official" story- why go against the grain then? I frankly believe that some people are so sheltered at the idea of government that they think the government would never do anything to harm them is ridiculous. We live in a greedy and corrupt country. How many more ridiculous news stories do you need to hear to even think that maybe they don't have your best interests in heart.

Maybe you out to dig a little deeper before you go ahead and call people who think outside of the box crazy. The same way you feel about them- they feel about you for playing blind.

www.youtube.com...

>

reply to post by Donny 4 million
Hi Donny,
I've done the Blarney, but I won't do it again..you see all the girls wear lipstick and I must have been after some girl who had more lipstick than actual lips, probably Joan Rivers or Dame Edna.
Anyway, I did a google after Weed got off the Wacky and replied, and I found out that old P4T has or use a flight simulation programme. I'm adding a link to another, articulate old gentleman thoughts on 9/11. Google his name afterwards, it will be interesting to hear opinions as to his credibility.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 11-9-2009 by smurfy]

Originally posted by Pathos
Concluding that 9/11 is a Government Conspiracy is Grotesque

What the hell. I just do not get it. After starting this tread over a hundred times, in my mind, I could not come up with a logical approach. When I first came to this website, I did notice the 9/11 conspiracy boards. Even though I knew they were there, I still managed to sign up for this site. Above Top Secret is the hub for any type of conspiracy. Elvis, JFK, UFOs, etc... You can find almost anything here. Out of all the topics that can be found here, I find the 9/11 boards to be very disturbing.

If I have to relate the comments in this section to a specific person, I would have thought they were coming from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. According to that creep over in Iran, he said that the Holocaust never happened. I see people in these boards saying the exact same thing, but they replaced the Holocaust with 9/11.

I am not sure if some of you get off on this debate. I do not understand how a person could blame a sitting US President for killing 2,000+ of his own citizens. I find it revolting, grotesque, and freakish.

I keep asking myself "What type of human being do you have to be in order to believe 9/11 is a conspiracy?" After pondering this question for a few days, I concluded that there is something seriously wrong with some of you.

American Exceptionalism

Scary animation of 9/11 jet impact reveals truth

What you 'truthers' lack is a shred of humanity. Enjoy the above two clips. Maybe you will learn something.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by Pathos]

its a conspiracy because i our government doenst care about our lives they care about making money. and thats exactly what happened they made a lot of money. especially big time politician Larry Silverstien who took out a huge lease on wtc7 six weeks before 9/11 then ironicaly he was the one who ordered it to be demolished. lucky coincidence... i dont think so

1e.) Recruitment/Solicitation:

i) You will not use your membership at The Above Network, LLC site(s) for any type of recruitment to any causes whatsoever.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by 12m8keall2c]

[edit on 12/9/09 by taylor101]

reply to post by smurfy


Hiya, smurfy.

Yeah, have heard of Gen. Stubblebine. I don't know/can't say what his deal is. Using his years of experience analyzing photos to reach his conclusions based ONLY on photos?? Apparently, ONLY from photos of the exterior of the Pentagon facade, and there's no telling WHICH photos he actually saw, or IF he saw the full context. Many of the "Truther" sites selectively crop, and edit, what they show to support their claims.

Why is HE the only one, so-called 'expert' of his type, to be making these comments???

Gen. Stubblebine's comments about the wing marks. Not sure what he's expecting to have seen in the photos, it isn't clear in the interview tape. Does he think they should be gaps shaped like the wings? The structure of the Pentagon is very different than the outer walls of the Towers.

Also, when you look at a B757 wing structure (if you can find photos or drawings of the internal structure, this will make sense) the most massive parts are located only out to just beyond where the engines are mounted. A few feet outboard of the engine mounts the wings are quite fragile, in comparison. Ribs, stringers and the aluminum skin. Traveling at high speeds, even the lighter components can inflict some damage, of course. BUT the concrete columns of the Pentagon were far stronger than the hollow steel sections of the Towers outer facade.

The evidence of the wings striking outside the Pentagon is there.

He talks about one theory, the shearing of one wing prior to impact with the building. I don't think it was like that, actually. ONE wingtip may have struck the ground prior to impact with the building, but only a few meters before, and at the speeds involved (at LEAST 650 feet per second) the time involved is nearly instantaneous.

The General says the press is "owned"?? I think that comes directly from the sort of paranoia that exists in the "Truther" camps, and it is a bit sad to see the General repeat it as if it is a fact.

WTC7 -- he demstrates a complete lack of the details of that building's collapse, by repeating another "Truther" vcanard, the 'melting' of the steel from the fuel fires...given that the fires from jet fuel, or other combustibles in the building, do not burn sufficiently hot to 'melt' steel. No one disputes that. It is a deflection from facts, and a red-herring. Extreme heat CAN cause steel to change its characteristics, and lose some strength. Coimbined with impact damage from peices of the WTC Towers, after they collapsed....

Here, this video does a good job, better than I can:



I think YT user 'RKOwens4' has a lot of good stuff.

Here's one about the Pentagon:


______________________________________________________
fixed YT link...

[edit on 12 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

Hi Donny,
I've done the Blarney, but I won't do it again..you see all the girls wear lipstick and I must have been after some girl who had more lipstick than actual lips, probably Joan Rivers or Dame Edna.
Anyway, I did a google after Weed got off the Wacky and replied, and I found out that old P4T has or use a flight simulation programme. I'm adding a link to another, articulate old gentleman thoughts on 9/11. Google his name afterwards, it will be interesting to hear opinions as to his credibility.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 11-9-2009 by smurfy]

Aye I'll do my best when I can get to a broadband hook-up.
Right about now I'm feelin mighty worried bout your shin and the puppy tha has attached it's paws to your knee. The grotesque aspects of 911 manifest themselves in more and more grotesque ways.
If you are not privy to the A3 bomber info from Denver let me kow and I will u2u you.

reply to post by taylor101

its a conspiracy because i our government doenst care about our lives they care about making money. and thats exactly what happened they made a lot of money. especially big time politician Larry Silverstien who took out a huge lease on wtc7 six weeks before 9/11 then ironicaly he was the one who ordered it to be demolished. lucky coincidence... i dont think

Its this kind of ignorance that allows people to fall for the 9/11 "truth" charlatans. Silverstein was around for the construction of the original wtc7. He didnt lease it six weeks before 9/11. Nor did he order its demolition. He had signed a lease for the Towers prior to 9/11 and even still, he isnt making big money.

reply to post by Donny 4 million
Hi Donny,
I would be only happy to have more info, please send.