MovieChat Forums > Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State Discussion > It has been debunked

It has been debunked

posted 18 years ago by jeghaderperkersvin66
57 replies | jump to latest

All conspiracy theories about 9/11 have been debunked by the science magazine Popular Mechanics:

Part 1.

Popular Mechanics
9/11: Debunking The Myths
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/12 27842.html?page=1&c=y

FROM THE MOMENT the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world has asked one simple and compelling question: How could it happen?

Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go to Google.com, type in the search phrase "World Trade Center conspiracy" and you'll get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites. More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks.

Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.

To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.--THE EDITORS

THE PLANES
The widely accepted account that hijackers commandeered and crashed the four 9/11 planes is supported by reams of evidence, from xxxxpit recordings to forensics to the fact that crews and passengers never returned home. Nonetheless, conspiracy theorists seize on a handful of "facts" to argue a very different scenario: The jets that struck New York and Washington, D.C., weren't commercial planes, they say, but something else, perhaps refueling tankers or guided missiles. And the lack of military intervention? Theorists claim it proves the U.S. government instigated the assault or allowed it to occur in order to advance oil interests or a war agenda.






Where's The Pod?
CLAIM: Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an object underneath the fuselage at the base of the right wing. The film "911 In Plane Site" and the Web site LetsRoll911.org claim that no such object is found on a stock Boeing 767. They speculate that this "military pod" is a missile, a bomb or a piece of equipment on an air-refueling tanker. LetsRoll911.org points to this as evidence that the attacks were an "inside job" sanctioned by "President George Bush, who planned and engineered 9/11."

FACT: One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page). PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images--the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."

No Stand-Down Order
CLAIM: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."

FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked--the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.


Flight 175's Windows
CLAIM: On Sept. 11, FOX News broadcast a live phone interview with FOX employee Marc Birnbach. 911inplanesite.com states that "Bernback" saw the plane "crash into the South Tower." "It definitely did not look like a commercial plane," Birnbach said on air. "I didn't see any windows on the sides."

Coupled with photographs and videos of Flight 175 that lack the resolution to show windows, Birnbach's statement has fueled one of the most widely referenced 9/11 conspiracy theories--specifically, that the South Tower was struck by a military cargo plane or a fuel tanker.

FACT: Birnbach, who was a freelance videographer with FOX News at the time, tells PM that he was more than 2 miles southeast of the WTC, in Brooklyn, when he briefly saw a plane fly over. He says that, in fact, he did not see the plane strike the South Tower; he says he only heard the explosion.

While heading a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) probe into the collapse of the towers, W. Gene Corley studied the airplane wreckage. A licensed structural engineer with Construction Technology Laboratories, a consulting firm based in Skokie, Ill., Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows. "It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly. In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied--including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine--as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky.





PLAIN VIEW: Passenger windows on a piece of Flight 175's fuselage. PHOTOGRPAH BY WILLIAM F. BAKER/FEMA


Intercepts Not Routine
CLAIM: "It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers," says the Web site oilempire.us. "When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes."

FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.

picture: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=468182&caption=%3Cspan+class%3D%22captionintro%22%3EPLAIN+VIEW%3A%3C%2Fspan%3E+Passenger+windows+on+a+piece+of+Flight+175%27s+fuselage.+PHOTOGRPAH+BY+WILLIAM+F.+BAKER%2FFEMA
(remove the free space, if it occurs)

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.






Widespread Damage
CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."

FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died" says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.


"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."


Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

picture: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=468207&caption=%3Cspan+class%3D%22captionintro%22%3EVIOLENT+COLLAPSE%3A%3C%2Fspan%3E+Pancaking+floors--not+controlled+demolition--expel+debris+and+smoke+out+South+Tower+windows.+PHOTOGRAPH+BY+AP%2FWIDE+WORLD+PHOTOS
(remove the free space, if it occurs)

Seismic Spikes
CLAIM: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.

A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

reply
formatting help
[–] jeghaderperkersvin66 18 years ago

part 2:


WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
pictures:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=465627&caption=%3Cspan+class%3D%22captionintro%22%3EFINE+LINES%3A%3C%2Fspan%3E+Revisionists+say+sharp+spikes+%28graph+1%2C+above%29+mean+bombs+toppled+the+WTC.+Scientists+disprove+the+claim+with+the+more+detailed+graph+2+%28below%29.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=465637&caption=Seismograph+readings+by+Lamont-Doherty+Earth+Observatory+of+Columbia+University%2FWon-Young+Kim+%28senior+research+scientist%29%2FArthur+Lerner-Lam+%28associate+director%29%2FMary+Tobin+%28senior+science+writer%29%2F%3Ca+href%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ldeo.columbia.edu%2Flcsn%22+target%3D%22_new%22%3Ewww.ldeo.columbia.edu%2Flcsn%3C%2Fa%3E

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=468217&caption=%3Cspan+class%3D%22captionintro%22%3EFIRE+STORM%3A%3C%2Fspan%3E+WTC+7+stands+amid+the+rubble+of+the+recently+collapsed+Twin+Towers.+Damaged+by+falling+debris%2C+the+building+then+endures+a+fire+that+rages+for+hours.+Experts+say+this+combination%2C+not+a+demolition-style+implosion%2C+led+to+the+roofline+%E2%80%9Ckink%E2%80%9D+that+signals+WTC+7%E2%80%99s+progressive+collapse.+PHOTOGRAPH+BY+NEW+YORK+OFFICE+OF+EMERGENCY+MANAGEMENT
(remove the free space, if it occurs)

THE PENTAGON
At 9:37 am on 9/11, 51 minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, the Pentagon was similarly attacked. Though dozens of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building, conspiracy advocates insist there is evidence that a missile or a different type of plane smashed into the Pentagon.





HQ ATTACK: Taken three days after 9/11, this photo shows the extent of the damage to the Pentagon, consistent with a fiery plane crash. PHOTOGRAPH BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE


Big Plane, Small Holes
CLAIM: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile--part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.





HOLE TRUTH: Flight 77’s landing gear punched a 12-ft. hole into the Pentagon’s Ring C. PHOTOGRAPH BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE


Intact Windows
CLAIM: Many Pentagon windows remained in one piece--even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagonstrike.co.uk, an online animation widely circulated in the United States and Europe, claims that photographs showing "intact windows" directly above the crash site prove "a missile" or "a craft much smaller than a 757" struck the Pentagon.

FACT: Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do--they're blast-resistant.

"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."


Flight 77 Debris
CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

pictures:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=493542&caption=%3Cspan+class%3D%22captionintro%22%3EHQ+ATTACK%3A%3C%2Fspan%3E+Taken+three+days+after+9%2F11%2C+this+photo+shows+the+extent+of+the+damage+to+the+Pentagon%2C+consistent+with+a+fiery+plane+crash.+PHOTOGRAPH+BY+DEPARTMENT+OF+DEFENSE

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=468227&caption=%3Cspan+class%3D%22captionintro%22%3EHOLE+TRUTH%3A%3C%2Fspan%3E+Flight+77%E2%80%99s+landing+gear+punched+a+12-ft.+hole+into+the+Pentagon%E2%80%99s+Ring+C.+PHOTOGRAPH+BY+DEPARTMENT+OF+DEFENSE

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=468257&caption=%3Cspan+class%3D%22captionintro%22%3EAFTERMATH%3A%3C%2Fspan%3E+Wreckage+from+Flight+77+on+the+Pentagon%E2%80%99s+lawn--proof+that+a+passenger+plane%2C+not+a+missile%2C+hit+the+building.+PHOTOGRAPH+BY+AP%2FWIDE+WORLD+PHOTOS
(remove the free space, if it occurs)

FLIGHT 93
xxxxpit recordings indicate the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 teamed up to attack their hijackers, forcing down the plane near Shanksville, in southwestern Pennsylvania. But conspiracy theorists assert Flight 93 was destroyed by a heat-seeking missile from an F-16 or a mysterious white plane. Some theorists add far-fetched elaborations: No terrorists were aboard, or the passengers were drugged. The wildest is the "bumble planes" theory, which holds that passengers from Flights 11, 175 and 77 were loaded onto Flight 93 so the U.S. government could kill them.

The White Jet
CLAIM: At least six eyewitnesses say they saw a small white jet flying low over the crash area almost immediately after Flight 93 went down. BlogD.com theorizes that the aircraft was downed by "either a missile fired from an Air Force jet, or via an electronic assault made by a U.S. Customs airplane reported to have been seen near the site minutes after Flight 93 crashed." WorldNetDaily.com weighs in: "Witnesses to this low-flying jet ... told their story to journalists. Shortly thereafter, the FBI began to attack the witnesses with perhaps the most inane disinformation ever--alleging the witnesses actually observed a private jet at 34,000 ft. The FBI says the jet was asked to come down to 5000 ft. and try to find the crash site. This would require about 20 minutes to descend."

FACT: There was such a jet in the vicinity--a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C., an apparel company that markets Wrangler jeans and other brands. The VF plane was flying into Johnstown-Cambria airport, 20 miles north of Shanksville. According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3000 to 4000 ft."--not 34,000 ft. "They were in a descent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on." Reached by PM, Gladwell confirmed this account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly.

Roving Engine
CLAIM: One of Flight 93's engines was found "at a considerable distance from the crash site," according to Lyle Szupinka, a state police officer on the scene who was quoted in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Offering no evidence, a posting on Rense.com claimed: "The main body of the engine ... was found miles away from the main wreckage site with damage comparable to that which a heat-seeking missile would do to an airliner."

FACT: Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.

Indian Lake
CLAIM: "Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains," states a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article dated Sept. 13, 2001. "Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly 6 miles from the immediate crash scene." Commenting on reports that Indian Lake residents collected debris, Think AndAsk.com speculates: "On Sept. 10, 2001, a strong cold front pushed through the area, and behind it--winds blew northerly. Since Flight 93 crashed west-southwest of Indian Lake, it was impossible for debris to fly perpendicular to wind direction. ... The FBI lied." And the significance of widespread debris? Theorists claim the plane was breaking up before it crashed. TheForbiddenKnowledge.com states bluntly: "Without a doubt, Flight 93 was shot down."

FACT: Wallace Miller, Somerset County coroner, tells PM no body parts were found in Indian Lake. Human remains were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site. Paper and tiny scraps of xxxxmetal, however, did land in the lake. "Very light debris will fly into the air, because of the concussion," says former National Transportation Safety Board investigator Matthew McCormick. Indian Lake is less than 1.5 miles southeast of the impact crater--not 6 miles--easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash. And the wind that day was northwesterly, at 9 to 12 mph, which means it was blowing from the northwest--toward Indian Lake.





Map by International Mapping


F-16 Pilot
CLAIM: In February 2004, retired Army Col. Donn de Grand-Pre said on "The Alex Jones Show," a radio talk show broadcast on 42 stations: "It [Flight 93] was taken out by the North Dakota Air Guard. I know the pilot who fired those two missiles to take down 93." LetsRoll911.org, citing de Grand-Pre, identifies the pilot: "Major Rick Gibney fired two Sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in midflight at precisely 0958."

FACT: Saying he was reluctant to fuel debate by responding to unsubstantiated charges, Gibney (a lieutenant colonel, not a major) declined to comment. According to Air National Guard spokesman Master Sgt. David Somdahl, Gibney flew an F-16 that morning--but nowhere near Shanksville. He took off from Fargo, N.D., and flew to Bozeman, Mont., to pick up Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State Emergency Management Office. Gibney then flew Jacoby from Montana to Albany, N.Y., so Jacoby could coordinate 17,000 rescue workers engaged in the state's response to 9/11. Jacoby confirms the day's events. "I was in Big Sky for an emergency managers meeting. Someone called to say an F-16 was landing in Bozeman. From there we flew to Albany." Jacoby is outraged by the claim that Gibney shot down Flight 93. "I summarily dismiss that because Lt. Col. Gibney was with me at that time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is being misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It brings up hopes--it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims' families but to all the individuals throughout the country, and the world for that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there."
picture:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=465657&caption=Map+by+International+Mapping
(remove the free space, if it occurs)

PM consulted more than 300 experts and organizations in its investigation into 9/11 conspiracy theories. The following were particularly helpful.



please debunk all this. Please dont lie, and attack the text and not the people that made it (like alex jones did, which only showed that Jones was scared, and was desperatly attacking the man, instead of theory, which he could not say any thing to)



Air Crash Analysis
Cleveland Center regional air traffic control

Bill Crowley special agent, FBI

Ron Dokell president, Demolition Consultants

Richard Gazarik staff writer, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Yates Gladwell pilot, VF Corp.

Michael K. Hynes, Ed.D.,
ATP, CFI, A&P/IA president, Hynes Aviation Services; expert, aviation crashes

Ed Jacoby Jr. director,
New York State Emergency Management Office (Ret.); chairman, New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission (Ret.)

Johnstown-Cambria County Airport Authority

Cindi Lash staff writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Matthew McCormick manager, survival factors division, National Transportation Safety Board (Ret.)

Wallace Miller coroner, Somerset County, PA

Robert Nagan meteorological technician, Climate Services Branch, National Climatic Data Center

Dave Newell director, aviation and travel, VF Corp.

James O’Toole politics editor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Pennsylvania State Police Public Information Office

Jeff Pillets senior writer,
The Record, Hackensack, NJ

Jeff Rienbold director, Flight 93 National Memorial, National Park Service

Dennis Roddy staff writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Master Sgt. David Somdahl public affairs officer,
119th Wing, North Dakota
Air National Guard

Mark Stahl photographer; eyewitness, United Airlines Flight 93 crash scene

Air Defense
Lt. Col. Skip Aldous (Ret.) squadron commander,
U.S. Air Force

Tech. Sgt. Laura Bosco public affairs officer,
Tyndall Air Force Base

Boston Center regional air traffic control

Laura Brown spokeswoman,
Federal Aviation Administration

Todd Curtis, Ph.D. founder, Airsafe.com; president, Airsafe.com Foundation

Keith Halloway public affairs officer, National Transportation Safety Board

Ted Lopatkiewicz director, public affairs, National Transportation Sa

reply
formatting help
[–] lortepik912 18 years ago

yes i know, i have clipped the same stuff into many of the forums here, sorta to make sure the lies arent spread

reply
formatting help
[–] d_adamec 18 years ago

and a debunking of comrade chertoff's pm article...

alex jones was interviewed for the 9/11 strawman / pro 19 freedom hating hijacker conspiracy theory...that's why i post this...

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/070305chertoffscousin.htm

Alex Jones Responds To Ben Chertoff, Popular Mechanics 9/11 Debunking Campaign

Alex Jones responds to the Popular Mechanics 9/11 debunking exercise. Popular Mechanics featured a so-called 'serious analysis' of alternative explanations behind 9/11 in their March issue.

In actual fact, the entire article was a straw man exercise. Popular Mechanics attributed false arguments to researchers and then attacked them. On top of that they lied outright by claiming that there was only one intercept of errant aircraft before 9/11.

Alex also addresses the issue of Ben Chertoff, the chief editor of the piece, being cousins with Michael Chertoff, the new Secretery of Homeland Security, an agency which owes its very existence to the establishment version of the 9/11 attack.

Popular Mechanics must be challenged face to face and forced to make retractions to their sloppily researched article.

Click here to leave a message at the Popular Mechanics blog site. We are getting reports that they are deliberately censoring comments which challenge their hit piece.

This letter for example was never published.

Call Popular Mechanics at 212-649-2000 or fax them at 212-586-5562. Ask for Meigs or Chertoff's office. Please be polite when making your point.

Alex Jones also interviewed Christopher Bollyn of the American Free Press. Bollyn blew the whistle on the cosy Chertoff Homeland Security family. Click here for the interview.

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/090305alexresponds.mp3

Transcript

I'm going to try to calmly and succinctly go over Benjamin Chertoff.... In late November of 2004 my wife handed me a stack of media I had to contact and amongst it was Popular Mechanics doing a piece on popular 9-11 'theories'. So I call and I talk to Benjamin Chertoff; we've now learned is a close family member of the Homeland Security Director, according to press reports. And I've talked to him and I've talked to others and I thought it was a fake interview. I've never thought an interview wasn't real. Of the hundreds of newspaper, TV interviews, the thousands of radio interviews I've done, I've never thought that a reporter was fake. People from school newspapers sound more credible and serious. USA Today, Washington Post, New York Times, these are normally focused serious people. Even if they're adversaries. I thought that the interview wasn't real, it was so shotty. I called Popular Mechanics ... one of the chief editors called back and said "Yes it's indeed real." They swore to me this is not a hit piece, we're just looking at the popular theories.

Then the headline on the magazine "9-11 Lies: Debunking" and it's "conclusive" they say. This is what they engaged in. I talked to Chertoff and others, on every point they'd raise to me I'd email them mainstream news articles, documents, Larry Silverstein saying they blew up WTC 7 (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html). Suddenly they wouldn't want to talk about that, they'd move on to something else. A lot of stuff they were going to put in there got dropped because I told their chief editor, "Look I can tell this is a hit piece and you're trying to liable me, you better watch yourself." A whole bunch of stuff they were gonna do wasn't in there about me 'cause I could see what they were doing. ...It sure enough was [a hit piece]. There are just so many facets to it.

Some of the things they debunked I agree are not provable. Number 1 they build a straw man (noun: a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted). Of the 16 points, 4 or 5 of them are questionable. ...You could find somebody on the internet saying space aliens carried out 9-11 or the planes were holograms. I don't believe that. You can find people that think space aliens killed Kennedy, no the government did. But the media says okay ... "If you think somebody else killed Kennedy, you think it was space aliens. That's the straw man argument. They did that. But a bunch of the points like Building 7, no mention of Silverstein, no mention of the firefighters telling reporters to get back we're gonna pull it, that's Associated Press. There's none of that.

But one of the really sterling examples from the piece, that I pray none of you will buy. It's online, you can read it there. Please don't spend your money; and if you have a subscription to them, don't be lazy, call and cancel. They deserve to have people boycott them. ...When I try to look at the spectrum of propaganda it's so hard to know where to start. One of the biggest smoking guns of disinfo in the article is No stand-down order ... No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. 'On September 11th Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.,' says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. 'They failed to do their job.' 'There is only one explanation for this,' writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. 'Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9-11.'

'Fact,' - now they're going to tell you fact. It's like Rumsfeld telling you fact on Face The Nation, 'I never said there were weapons of mass destruction, it's an urban legend.' Well just 'cause you say that's a fact Rumsfeld we all know it's a lie; 'cause we have you on video. - 'On 9-11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the continuous 48 states.' Yeah 'cause they were all part of the giant drill. Which is what Associated Press reported. 'No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of the missing planes.' That's not true. 'They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us,' says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times. ...They go on to say that there's a claim that planes have been scrambled hundreds of times before 9-11. They say 'No that's not true, in the decade before 9-11 it only happened one time. One time.' ...The very Maj. they quote, Maj. Douglas Martin, he told the Associated Press that they'd over 60 times, scrambled them and had them intercepted in the year before September 11th. ...I've talked to pilots who've had radio problems and F-16's fly up next to them. Everybody knows this, not just Maj. Douglas Martin the Public Affairs Officer. ...We have the public record, everybody knows this, this is public knowledge.

The question is, why do we put up with this? ...This is how they supposedly debunk everything. Then he gets up on the radio Saturday night, Sunday morning, and tells Tens of Millions of people that, 'Well Mr. Jones can call and deffend himself,' and an hour later 'Well I guess he isn't gonna call in and defend himself because he can't, he can't refute these facts.' Just because you say 'fact fact fact' doesn't mean it's a fact. While I was being interviewed and other members of the Popular Propoganda staff I kept saying aren't you gonna talk about public officials being warned not to fly. Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, MSNBC, Salman Rushdie, Times of London, CBS News reporting on Ashcroft. Are you gonna talk about Bush on Cipro, White House Press Secretary Harry Fleischer admitted it. The whole cabinet on Cipro four weeks before it showed up in Boca Raton, Florida. Are you gonna talk about CIA insider trading? 'No no no.' Will you talk about Larry Silverstein saying that he pulled the buildings? I've sent you the video clip, have you watched it? 'No I haven't had time.' Will you call Larry Silverstein and ask him, he says he blew it up. 'Um, no I don't think so ...' or 'maybe.' Then I talked to his editor, I said I'm sending this to you. Will you call Larry Silverstein? 'Oh we're very interested in that. And this isn't a hit piece, no it's not, we promise. We just want to see what you guys think.'

The bottom line is this, people aren't listening to these people anymore. They're not listening. They're not believing it. The population knows by and large - they may not know all the details, but they know information is being twisted, it's being spun, it's being fabricated, it's being made up, it's being white washed. They know that. Your credibility is at an all time low. It's just that simple. Your credibility is gone. It's now part of the record that the government has been caught Thousands and Thousands of times lying to us. So is it any surprise now, that we have ariticles like this from News Max: Web News Grows, Papers Spiral Down ? (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/6/195811.shtml) I watched some TV this weekend ... every news show I saw was attacking the 'new media.' Talking about how uncredible it is and how it's taking over. ...They even tried to use the White House's own male prostitute madam as 'See how uncredible the alternative media is?' Well that's not the alternative media, that's one of your boy toys Lord Bush. That's one of the Globalist little minions. One of his influence peddler's infiltrating the alternate press through a neo con Web site openly funded by the White House. They have the nerve on two seperate shows I saw. The Daily Show was one and CNN was another - to go on the air and imply because of the Gannon story that 'Oh see, that's how uncredible the alternative press is.' John Stewart used the word man whore. 'Alternative press has got man whores running it.' So you've got your fake reporters out there and then it's our fault. See, no no, you're trying to infiltrate the alternative media. Bush has paid Tens of Millions for fake blogs, Seventy-Six Million for fake news casts just for Medicaid. Armstrong Williams ... there's dozens and dozens.... I hear it locally on the radio, people. I hear locally Federally funded Austin Air Force ads, that's a group wanting to get admissions testing on cars and I've called up before and they go 'Yeah it is a paid spot, how did you know that?' Packaged into the local newscast. It's everywhere. Look, I had these people offer me a Million bucks, in the first year, Six years ago, to go become a neo con. 'You could be the next Rush Limbaugh. Just stop talking about black helicopters and the New World Order. Here's the contract, we're gonna start you out on Fifteen juggernaut marquee stations and if you play ball after the first year,' I was gonna get a million, 'you'll get triple that.' And you know what I told them, I said, 'You can take your offer and you know what you can do with it!'

So we have this atmosphere now in the Country where we're learning how many of the press are paid off and controlled. But there's other forms of control, the globalist editors and controllers can just look at other writings and different reporters out there and pick people that instinctively have the establishment agenda and mind-set. That's another form of control. Then on top of that you have blood. You have these societies. You have this elite and its nepotism where they put their own minions into power. And it is being reported that Chertoff's cousin penned Popular Mechanics' 9-11 hit piece. 'Who is Benjamin Chertoff, the senior researcher at Popular Mechanics who is behind the article? American Free Press har learned that he is none other than a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. This means that Hearst paid Benjamin Chertoff to write an article supporting the seriously flawed explanation that is based on a practically non-existent investigation of the terror event that directly led to the creation of the massive national security department his cousin now heads. This is exactly the kind of journalism one would expect to find in a dictatorship like that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Because the manager of public relations for Popular Mechanics didn't respond to repeated calls from American Free Press, I called Benjamin Chertoff, the magazine's senior researcher, directly. Chertoff said he was the senior researcher of the piece. When asked if he was related to Michael Chertoff, he said I don't know. Clearly uncomfortable about discussing the matter further, he told me that all questions about the article should be put to the publicist - the one who never answers the phone. Benjamin's mother in Pelham, New York, however, was more willing to talk. Asked if Benjamin was related to the new Secretary of Homeland Security, Judy said, Yes, of course, he is a cousin.'

This guy has the classic M.O. 24 years old, 23 when he was first in Iraq. Reporting for the New World Order. Then he comes back and lands the big job at Popular Mechanics. Regardless folks, if he is Chertoff's blood, ... this is clear conflict of interest. We need to get the blogs working on this. This is a serious issue. Maybe we're on to something like the Gannon situation with more of these plants ... it fits the M.O. My nose, my snout ... smells a big gigantic rotten rat under the floor boards. I suggest we pull the floor boards up and investigate. Though it is rancid and stinky, as the hound dogs we are, we have to go after our quarry. Fearlessly. And that's exactly what we're gonna do. We're good little attack dogs for freedom. If you want to play hardball we're gonna play hardball with you for ... I'm launching a Five year campaign. I've decided. Yes, Five years you will routinely be investigated. And I know it's dangerous to go up against the Homeland Security bloodline. I understand that. But we're gonna expose it. We know we're on their radar. They're attacking us, you might as well defend ourselves. The best defense is a good offense.

Transcribed by Benedict Vincent.

reply
formatting help
[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] loleralacartelort7890 18 years ago

No it really has been debunked.

And secondly, to all conspiracy theorists: PLEASE attack the theories of Popular Mechanincs, instead of attacking the men.


from http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/artic le_1253.shtml
9-11 Conspiracy Fact & Fiction
by William F. Jasper
May 2, 2005

An abundance of sensational and irrational conjecture about the September 11 terrorist attacks is being used to discredit any consideration of conspiracy in general. [UPDATE, May 23, 2005. Here are selected articles from The New American's archives challenging the �official� position on 9/11: �Did We Know What Was Coming?� in the March 11, 2002 issue of TNA; �Foreknowledge and Failure� in our June 17, 2002 issue; �Experts Challenge the 9/11 Report,� in our October 4, 2004 issue; and �Agents Challenge 9/11 Commission� in our October 18, 2004 issue.]
"The truth is out there." So went the tagline of the popular TV sci-fi series, The X-Files. Sometimes it can seem that the truth is way "out there," as one tries to sift through the confusion of conflicting statements of government officials, mainstream media organizations, alternative media outlets, witnesses, experts, and so-called experts.
This is certainly the case regarding the terrorist events of September 11, 2001. Of the four coordinated events � the two attacks on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre in New York, the attack on the Pentagon, and the crash in rural Pennsylvania � almost every significant official finding presented as fact has been subjected to challenge by a host of critics. The government has invited (even incited, it can be argued) suspicion by refusing to release evidence even to congressional committees and continuing the pattern of secrecy and cover-up that we have seen in past administrations concerning such events as the 1991 Ruby Ridge shootout, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and the 1996 downing of TWA Flight 800.
However, many of those disputing the official version of the 9/11 attacks have chosen, oddly enough, to challenge some of the government's most solid evidence and to do so with flimsy evidence of their own, often accompanied with sensational, irrational conjecture. Some of the most popularly disseminated 9/11 scenarios assert, for instance, that the Pentagon and the Twin Towers were not hit by the hijacked commercial airliners, but by missiles and/or military planes.
A mushrooming array of books, videos, and Internet websites devoted to 9/11 presents an ever-multiplying and ever wilder assortment of theories and scenarios concerning virtually every aspect of the attacks. Some of them have gotten almost into the X-Files realm, proposing explanations so outlandish that one might expect to find out that the 9/11 terror attacks were really launched by aliens from outer space. In fact, as we will point out, at least one 9/11 conspiracy theorist argues that some influential human beings directing world events are actually extra-terrestrial shape-shifters.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/uploads/penta gon_nns_.jpg

All of this, of course, is being used to discredit as a "conspiracy theory wacko" anyone who challenges any part of the government's official line on the September 11 attacks, as well as anyone who questions the government's incremental police-state response to 9/11 in the name of "homeland security."
Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 discredits itself by mixing legitimate criticisms of the Bush administration with typical left-wing rants. Moore, an unabashed radical leftist, poisons the political well and makes it easier for the internationalists in the Republican Party to dismiss all principled opposition to the Bush administration's destructive policies as "Bush-bashing" or "Democrat propaganda." Likewise, many of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are self-discrediting, either because of the absurd nature of their claims or the oddball manner of their presentations � or both. However, they invariably manage to sprinkle their rants with references to the new world order, the United Nations, world government, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Illuminati, etc. Hence, those of us who responsibly expose and oppose the one-world agenda of the Bush administration (as we did also with the Clinton administration, without fear or favour) are more easily marginalized as extremists and "conspiracy nuts."
It is not our purpose in this article to review, analyze, and refute all, or even most, of the bogus 9/11 theories and rumours circulating out there. Our objective is to expose a few of the hoaxes, in the interest of helping all Americans become more "streetwise" about the dangers and pitfalls of uncritically accepting stories from the "alternative media," as well as from the establishment media and official government sources.
The Pentagon Attack
Although each of the four terrorist incidents involving aircraft on September 11 is being subjected to vociferous challenges, the official version of the Pentagon attack has been the main target of the critics. The catalyst for most of the Pentagon-attack sleuths can be traced back to the incendiary propaganda of French author and radical socialist Thierry Meyssan, president of the virulently anti-American and pro-Communist French think tank Reseau Voltaire. In his best-selling book, L'Effroyable Imposture (The Frightening Deception), Meyssan launched the claim that American Airlines Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. It has been translated into English and is sold in the U.S. as 9/11: The Big Lie. Meyssan has followed up with a second book, Pentagate.
Many of the organizations and websites "investigating" the 9/11 attacks promote and/or sell the Meyssan books. Dave vonKleist, narrator and producer of the video 911 In Plane Site, one of the most popular "expos�s" of the September 11 events, explains in his video that it was Meyssan's 9/11 website, "Hunt the Boeing," that got him started investigating the matter.
Mr. vonKleist strangely refers repeatedly to Meyssan's books and website as information "released by the French," as though it were released by the French government or the French people collectively. In reality, Meyssan represents only a small fringe on the far left of French politics, and his 9/11 materials have been denounced as disinformation and hucksterism by political and media representatives spanning the spectrum of French political thought, including many of those who strongly oppose U.S. policies in response to the 9/11 terror attacks.
According to vonKleist, when he first saw "Hunt the Boeing," he had only "one goal in mind: to prove the French wrong." However, as he looked into Meyssan's evidence, he says, he became convinced that "the French" were right after all.
Although critics of the official version of the attack on the Pentagon disagree with the government's version on numerous points, perhaps the main ones, which we will examine here, concern allegations that: the hole in the Pentagon is too small to have been made by a Boeing 757; there is too little aircraft debris for a 757 crash; and flying a 757 into the Pentagon is virtually an impossible feat, especially for an inexperienced pilot like one of the hijackers.
"The impact holes are too small." vonKleist parrots Meyssan's false claim that the plane's entry "hole" in the exterior wall of the Pentagon was only 16 feet in diameter. His In Plane Site web page disingenuously presents a smoke-obscured photo which supposedly verifies this point, claiming: "Upon examining these photographs, one can clearly see a hole, which is only 16 feet in diameter. This begs the question: 'How can a Boeing 757 which is over 44 feet in height and 124 feet in width simply disappear without a trace into a hole that is only 16 feet in diameter? Also, why is there no external damage to the Pentagon where the wings and the tail section would have impacted with the outer wall?'" Like Meyssan, the vonKleist video 911 In Plane Site advances the theory that a missile is the most probable cause of the Pentagon damage.
But what are the facts? The Pentagon is a five-story, five-sided building complex comprised of five concentric rings, running from an interior Ring A to an exterior Ring E. The photo and video evidence support the conclusions of the 2003 Pentagon Building Performance Report produced by the American Society of Civil Engineers that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior facade at the ground floor, creating a hole in Ring E approximately 90 feet wide. That's 90 feet � not 16 feet.
A multitude of eyewitnesses saw the 757 swooping down toward the Pentagon, and many actually saw it hit. Dennis Behreandt, in his August 23, 2004 article for The New American, quoted some of these witnesses, so we won't repeat them here. However, an important expert witness whom we will mention in this regard is Allyn Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers, who arrived at the scene shortly after the blast. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building," he says. "I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them."
Some have discounted Kilsheimer's testimony because as a contractor for the Defence Department he is considered a "tainted" witness. However, it's difficult to discount on similar grounds Brig. Gen. Benton K. Partin, USAF (retired), an expert witness who has proven his independence and willingness to challenge cover-ups in the past. One of the world's leading missile and military explosives experts, Gen. Partin was director of the U.S. Air Force Armaments Technology Laboratory, where he designed and tested many types of missiles, warheads, and ordnance against various building structures and armour.
Partin did not personally witness the crash, but he lives near the Pentagon, is very familiar with the building's structure, and began studying the evidence immediately after the event. Does he see any problems with the official Flight 77 crash scenario? "No, not at all," he told The New American. "I've seen the videos claiming that it was a missile, not a 757, that hit the Pentagon," he says, angrily dismissing the claim in scatological terms.
"When you slam an aluminium aircraft at high velocity into a concrete structure, it's going to do exactly what we saw happen at the Pentagon on 9/11," Partin said. "If you look at a frontal mass cross-section of the plane, you see a cylinder of aluminium skin with stringers. When it impacts with the exterior [Pentagon] wall at 700-800 feet per second, much of the kinetic energy of the plane converts to thermal energy, and much of the aluminium converts to vapour, burning to aluminium oxide. That's why on the still photos from Pentagon surveillance camera, you first see the frame with that brilliant white luminescent flash just before the frame of the orange fireball, the jet fuel burning. The aluminium cylinder � the plane fuselage � is acting like a shaped charge penetrating a steel plate. It keeps penetrating until it is consumed. The Boeing 757 is over 150 feet long, so it's going to penetrate quite a ways before it's spent. The wings have a much lower mass cross-section and are loaded with fuel besides, so there is little left of them except small bits and pieces."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/uploads/plane -video2-_nc_.jpg
Flight 77 on impact: Explosives expert Gen. Benton K. Partin says the brilliant white flash seen in the photo above is vaporized, burning aluminium from the Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon. [Source: Associated Press]


"Where's the wreckage?" One of the arguments that appears on the surface to have some merit, is the argument of negative proof: the stunning absence of crash debris. On his "Hunt the Boeing" web page, Meyssan shows a photo of the smoking Pentagon with a long expanse of lawn in the foreground evincing very little wreckage. The accompanying caption asks: "Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?" Meyssan's imitators have used a number of variations on this theme, presenting photos and video segments and demanding to know where the 757 wreckage is. Some websites feature a news clip of CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre standing outside the burning, smoking Pentagon on 9/11 shortly after the crash, telling viewers: "There's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon."


VonKleist says that photographs "raise the question as to WHAT hit the Pentagon and what really happened that morning." He goes on to say:
Many of those who reject this line of inquiry respond with the question: "If the 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, then where did it go?" Answer: "I don't know!" The question should be: "If a 757 hit the Pentagon, then where is it?"
As Gen. Partin points out, most of the plane penetrated into the Pentagon, burning and shredding as it went. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers study, the plane cut a diagonal swath 230 feet into the first floor, penetrating Rings E, D, and C. "Under these circumstances, you're just not going to end up with much airplane debris � inside or outside [the building]," says Partin.
Also, while 9/11 sceptics cite the relatively small amount of wreckage as proof that Flight 77 couldn't have hit the Pentagon, many of them ignore what was found at the crash site: Flight 77's "black boxes" and passenger remains. Others claim that the black boxes and remains have been faked. VonKleist acknowledges in his video 911 In Plane Site that "there are those who � ask the question, 'Well, if the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, where did it go?'" But he says, "I don't know where it went. For all I know, it could be sitting in 200 feet of water in the Atlantic Ocean."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/uploads/pentb uildingreport16.jpg
Path of destruction: A graphic from a report by the American Society of Civil Engineers shows the columns that were damaged and destroyed in the Pentagon and where the remains of the passengers and Pentagon employees were found in the first story of the building. [Source: American Society of Civil Engineers]

"The attack required impossible piloting." Some prominent 9/11 sceptics claim that the flight path of the jet that hit the Pentagon would have been humanly impossible in a 757, while others admit it might be possible for an expert pilot, but not for hijacker Hani Hanjour, the inexperienced pilot believed to have commandeered Flight 77.
In Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack, Eric Hufschmid says: "I would say it is absurd to believe an inexperienced pilot could fly such a plane a few millimetres above the ground. The flight path of this plane is enough to convince me that no human was in control of it. I think only a computer is capable of flying an airplane in such a tricky manner. If terrorists flew the plane, they would qualify as the World's Greatest Pilots since they did tricks with a commercial aircraft that I doubt the best Air Force pilots could do."
Ralph Omholt's "skydrifter" website claims: "No pilot will claim to be able to hit such a spot as the Pentagon base � under any conditions � in a 757 doing 300 knots. As to the clearly alleged amateur pilots: IMPOSSIBLE!"
"Impossible"? "No pilot will claim...?" Well, we did not have any difficulty finding pilots who disagreed. Ronald D. Bull, a retired United Airlines pilot, in Jupiter, Florida, told The New American, "It's not that difficult, and certainly not impossible," noting that it's much easier to crash intentionally into a target than to make a controlled landing. "If you're doing a suicide run, like these guys were doing, you'd just keep the nose down and push like the devil," says Capt. Bull, who flew 727s, 747s, 757s, and 767s for many years, internationally and domestically, including into the Washington, D.C., airports.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/uploads/plane pieces_nns_.jpg
Flight 77 debris: Since Flight 77 penetrated into the Pentagon, there was not much debris outside of the building. However, the American Airlines wreckage in the photo above is additional proof that the plane, not a missile, hit the building. [Source: Navy News Stand]


George Williams of Waxhaw, North Carolina, piloted 707s, 727s, DC-10s, and 747s for Northwest Airlines for 38 years. "I don't see any merit to those arguments whatsoever," Capt. Williams told us. "The Pentagon is a pretty big target and I'd say hitting it was a fairly easy thing to do."
According to 9/11 "investigator" xxxx Eastman, whose wild theories are posted on the American Patriot Friends Network and many other Internet sites, Flight 77 was part of an elaborate deception in which a remote-controlled F-16 "killer jet" actually hit the Pentagon, while the 757 swooped over the Pentagon and landed at Reagan National Airport! "With its engines off," says Eastman, Flight 77 silently "coasted" in to the airport and blended in with other air traffic. "There would be few people to see Flight 77 come through, and those who did would doubtless assume that it was yet another routine flight over Reagan National," he claims.
"That's so far-fetched it's beyond ludicrous," says Capt. Williams. "I've flown into Reagan [National Airport] hundreds of times and you can't just sneak in and 'blend in' without air traffic controllers knowing about it and without other pilots and witnesses noticing."
Besides, as Capt. Ron Bull points out, the Eastman scenario would require piloting skills far beyond what it would take to hit the Pentagon. "I've flown into Reagan National many times and my first trip in a 757 was no picnic," he says. "I had to really work at it, and that was after 25 years of experience flying big jets. Any scenario that has the 757 [Flight 77] taking a flight path over the Pentagon and landing at National unobserved is proposing something that is far more difficult � and far more difficult to believe � than flying the plane into the Pentagon. It's just not credible."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/uploads/downe d-lamp-post_loc_.jpg
Lamp posts taken out by Flight 77 were too far apart to have been done by a missile or a fighter jet, say witnesses and experts, including General Benton K. Partin. [Source: Library of Congress]



General Partin, an Air Force Command Pilot, sums up the case for Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon: "The alternative explanations just get crazier and crazier. In addition to the physical evidence and the photographic evidence supporting the official story, there are literally hundreds of eyewitness’s � including many people I know personally � who saw the 757. Besides that, there are the light poles that were knocked down � which I saw personally and which are in the photographic record � that can't be accounted for by a missile or small jet wingspan. Then you have the Flight 77 victim remains and the black boxes. If you reject all of that, then you have to come up with an alternative explanation for what happened to Flight 77. I've seen the alternative explanations and they're absurd!"
But despite all the evidence to the contrary, let's suppose for a moment that Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. Why hijack the plane and then crash it into the Atlantic Ocean, or fly it into Reagan National Airport, or do whatever else was done with it to make it "disappear"? Why hijack the plane to make it appear that it was used against a target and then not use it against any target? Why plant the black boxes and human remains at the Pentagon site? Wouldn't it make more sense, and be much simpler, to actually use the plane against the Pentagon?

End of part 1

reply
formatting help
[–] loleralacartelort7890 18 years ago

Part 2 of 2
World Trade Center Attacks

As with the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City have spawned a tremendous urban legend industry.

"It's the Flash, Stupid!" In the video 911 In Plane Site, Dave vonKleist claims to have found the smoking gun: a bright flash that can be seen in a slow-motion viewing of video footage at the very moment that the noses of the jetliners crashed into the buildings, or a split-second before impact. In his website essay, "It's the Flash, Stupid!" vonKleist asks, "What caused the flash?" He answers: "There are four possibilities that come to mind: a) a reflection; b) sparks from the fuselage striking the building; c) static discharge; d) some type of incendiary (bomb or missile)." VonKleist quickly disposes of a, b, and c and settles on a missile as the only logical explanation.
General Partin says vonKleist omits the most obvious explanation. "It's very simple," he told The New American, "When the noses of the aircraft hit the buildings, you have a bright aluminium flash, the same as we saw at the Pentagon. That's obvious to anyone familiar with physics, chemistry, and what happens when aluminium hits a structure at a high rate of speed." And the proof of that analysis, the general points out, is in vonKleist's own video. "If you watch just a few frames after the nose flash, you'll see two smaller aluminium flashes as each engine strikes the building. That's all it is."
There's another major problem with the "missile flash." According to vonKleist, the missiles were fired from a pod on the belly of each of the jumbo jets. But, if that is the case, where is the flash from the ignition of the missile; why is there no missile exhaust flare seen on the video? Where is that flash?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/uploads/ny_13 91_bldg5_229fema.jpg
Military plane? Some theorists claim that military planes, not commercial airliners, hit the WTC, based on a witness who didn’t�t see any windows on the plane that hit the South Tower. The above photo shows the windows from Flight 175�s wreckage. [Source: FEMA]



The "missile pod." This brings us to the "pod" that vonKleist and others claim is visible in a photograph and in video footage of the underside of the fuselage of United Airlines Flight 175 just before it strikes the South Tower of the World Trade Center. The 9/11 conspiracy theorists assert that this "pod" shows that the plane carried either a bomb or a missile. Popular Mechanics asked Dr. Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University, to examine the photo in question. Prof. Greeley concluded that the "pod" was merely the play of light on the fairing that houses the Boeing's landing gear. Gen. Benton Partin agreed with Professor Greeley. "There's no 'pod' there," Partin told The New American. "It's a smear from a high-speed target and a low-speed camera. At the instant of impact the film exposure at the nose approaches zero. Without the bright aluminium flash the nose impact wouldn't even be seen."
Demolition charges. "The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did. So why use planes? It seems they were a diversionary tactic � a grand spectacle." So writes Randy Lavello in an article on www.prisonplanet.com, one of the Internet sites of shortwave radio broadcaster and video producer Alex Jones.
"The World Trade Center was not destroyed by terrorists. It was a controlled demolition, an inside job!" says "Geronimo Jones" in an article on the Internet site letsroll911.org.
"The fact that the towers fell this quickly (essentially at the rate of free-fall) is conclusive evidence that they were deliberately demolished," he claims.
This is also a major theme of the vonKleist video, 911 In Plane Site, which, like a number of other video productions, attempts to liken the World Trade Center collapses to the 1995 attack on Oklahoma City's Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Some of these 9/11 productions even cite Gen. Partin as an authority to back their theories about the Twin Towers. General Partin exposed the evidence that the OKC blast included internal demolition charges, in addition to the Ryder truck bomb.
But Partin says the OKC and WTC incidents are completely different. The Murrah building was only nine stories tall and made of heavy steel-reinforced concrete. And, since the Ryder truck was outside the building, the damage it caused was primarily from the shock wave of pressurized air. The Twin Towers, on the other hand, were 110 stories tall, supported by steel columns, and the planes � which served as missiles � dumped large quantities of high-energy, hot fuel.
"The claims that the explosions and fires would not have generated enough heat to cause the building to collapse are nonsense," Partin told THE NEW AMERICAN. "Steel doesn't have to 'melt' as some of these people claim. The yield strength of steel drops very dramatically under heat, and the impact of the airliners would have severely impacted the support columns. When they could no longer support the upper stories and the top started coming down, the dynamic loading caused a very rapid collapse, or 'pancaking,' that would have very nearly approached free-fall rate. No demolition charges were needed to accomplish this."
Edward Peik, vice president of Alpine Environmental, Inc. of Chelmsford, Mass., agrees. Peik, a civil engineer, with 40 years of engineering experience in government and industry, grew up in New York City and is familiar with the structure of the Twin Towers. "I was at home watching all of this unfold on TV" on 9/11, he told The New American. "My first reaction was, 'My God, they've got to get everybody out of there right away, because it's going to come down fast!' I called my son Ron, who is also an engineer. We were both beside ourselves because we knew that they wouldn't stay up very long. As soon as fire hits steel, it loses strength fast and those towers had relatively lightweight steel beams spanning large distances. The building was supported by the steel outer walls. When the upper part of the building started coming down, the floors below could not support the weight crashing down on them. It was a vertical domino effect."
The opinions of Partin, Peik, and several other structural experts we consulted agree with the official consensus that the WTC towers collapsed as a result of the severe damage caused by the planes and the ensuing fires, not as a result of controlled demolition. General Partin says that he was contacted by vonKleist, who wanted him to support his position, which Partin was not willing to do.



A Profusion of Confusion and Delusion

The cover story of the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics is entitled, "Debunking 9/11 Lies: Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Hard Facts." The magazine assembled an impressive line-up of more than 300 experts to examine 16 claims made by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. We think that Popular Mechanics did a credible job regarding the Pentagon attack and the alleged missile pods, but we have not investigated all of the 16 conspiracy theories they dismiss.
We certainly do not agree with Popular Mechanics' rabid editorializing against "conspiracy theory." In the space of a few paragraphs, the magazine's editors use the words "conspiracy," "conspiracy theory," and "conspiracy theorists" over and over again, to harshly ridicule the idea of conspiracy. However, the 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" have made it easy for Popular Mechanics and others to relegate all talk of conspiracy to the loony category. The Popular Mechanics broadside proves our point that we must be careful with facts. It proves that the propagation of bad information about conspiracy can be, and will be, used to dismiss the notion of conspiracy in general.
"Healthy scepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia," says Popular Mechanics. "Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media." Unfortunately, that is true. David vonKleist, for instance, features on his In Plane Site website a glowing endorsement from David Icke, the New Age guru who peddles fantastic conspiracy theories claiming that George W. Bush and other world leaders are actually reptilian shape-shifters from another galaxy. Some of the other 9/11 "authorities" are only slightly less lurid.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/uploads/vankl eist.jpg
In plain fright: Dave vonKleist, in his 911 In Plane Site video, insists that photos show a missile pod on the belly of a plane that hit the WTC and a light flash from a missile explosion. Experts and laymen who have viewed the video disagree with vonKleist. [Source: 911 In Plane Site]



Recently, a colleague told me a tragic story about his sister-in-law, who had succeeded in getting her spouse to attend church occasionally with her (though not as a member of that church), only to have a prominent, visiting church leader spout off from the pulpit as gospel some of the discredited 9/11 conspiracy theories discussed above. The spouse was so incensed by the obvious falsity and ridiculousness of the cleric's statements that he vowed never to attend the church again or to believe anything anyone connected with the church says. This is not the only example we could cite illustrating why it is so important to be sure of one's facts, as well as one's sources.
It is very difficult to re-establish believability once we have discredited ourselves by promoting information that turns out to be misinformation � or even worse, intentional disinformation. But what is even more tragic is that every time we err in this regard we not only affect our own personal credibility, but the credibility of all of our colleagues in the freedom fight who have laboured long and hard to overcome the smears and ridicule of our opponents.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/uploads/ny2.j pg
Distract and discredit: Wild speculation distracts Americans from real issues of cover-up and complicity in the 9/11 attacks and discredits all mention of conspiracy. [Source: Navy News Stand]


Opinion polls repeatedly have shown that most Americans view the major media as biased and untrustworthy. Similarly, polls show that Americans tend to be suspicious of government. This is healthy scepticism, based on experience and common sense: we have learned firsthand that government officials and the media frequently lie. However, this same scepticism must also be applied to alternative information sources, whether they be talk radio, the Internet, newsletters, magazines, or word of mouth.
One of our first guidelines should be based on the old adage, "Consider the source." What is the track record of the source? Have they been reliable in the past? Do they have a well-earned reputation for truth and getting the facts straight? Or have they been known to sensationalize, censor, ignore, colour, crop, or even falsify the facts to advance a hidden agenda?
This publication's agenda is expressed on the front cover of every issue: "That freedom shall not perish." And we recognize that freedom is not possible without a rigorous, continuous search for, and absolute fidelity to, the truth. We are committed to that purpose, and we think it is a worthy goal to which all Americans constantly should recommit themselves.




Distorting Similes

In "Getting the Facts Straight" (The New American August 23, 2004), Dennis Behreandt notes that although Thierry Meyssan "asserts that the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not an airplane, he does not cite even a single witness claiming to have seen a missile. His only 'evidence' for the missile theory is descriptive similes used by witnesses who attested to seeing a plane but who compared the plane to a missile. For instance, he quotes USA Today reporter Joel Sucherman, who saw the plane as it raced toward its target. According to Sucherman, 'whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction. It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle � almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked on its target and staying dead on course.'" Likewise, Meyssan played fast and loose with the testimony of other witnesses who spoke metaphorically. Behreandt logically concluded: "Either Meyssan does not understand the use of metaphor in English, or he is being disingenuous."
The same can be said for many of Meyssan's imitators, who repeat his misuse of witness testimony. The same problem has reappeared in the case of the World Trade Center collapse. Witness testimony referring to the way the buildings came down like a controlled demolition have been presented as statements of belief that the collapse was in fact a controlled demolition.

Also see:
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZGscWP5Osw


If you conspiracy theorists, then you can easily debunk all this in a second.
Please do it. If you cant, then i know the 9-11-conspiracies are lies.

reply
formatting help
[–] jeghaderperkersvin66 18 years ago

debunking exercise???
Yeah right, with 300 experts involved.......

Hehe this is funny. The conspiracy theorists cant defend what is written in popular mechanics, therefore they attack all of the men involved.......
that credits the article more than anything: it proves that it is right, that they cant say anything against it, because it is all true.

reply
formatting help
[–] d_adamec 18 years ago

another thorough debunking of PM's strawman attack. i'm learning to practice cognitive dissonance, it just takes a great deal of ignorance to buy into the 19 freedom hating muslim conspiracy fable. but i'm learning to ignore how the 19 freedom hating hijacker hypothesis explains very little of what happened on 9/11.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

reply
formatting help
[–] jeghaderperkersvin66 18 years ago

Quote from d adamec: "another thorough debunking of PM's strawman attack. i'm learning to practice cognitive dissonance, it just takes a great deal of ignorance to buy into the 19 freedom hating muslim conspiracy fable. but i'm learning to ignore how the 19 freedom hating hijacker hypothesis explains very little of what happened on 9/11. "

LOL, why is that so far fetched???
You conspiracy theorists says it is far fetched that 19 Extreme Islamists captured a plane and ramed it into 3 ver regocnizeable buildings!
But then again the same conspiracy theorists claim that it is much more likely that it was remotecontrolled cargoairplanes, steered with the help of martians and UFO´s.

Conspiracy theorists crack me up: most have lost all grips on reality.

Especially now when you should attack popular mechanics: if the Conspiracy theorists was right, then it would have been easy for you to prove that all point in their investigation was false. But you dont: you go out and claim that all 500 people are part of the new world order, mostly if they have been hired by the government, example as a chef in the marines or sometihng like that. To you, if you at one time have recieved money from the US-government, then you are evil. It is funny that all Conspiracy theorists so qiuckly can right off all morale such person could have, just because he works for the government.
All the people that you people now claim is shielding the "truth" is just funny. thousands, maybe millions, acourting to the Conspiracy theorists. And if you listen to the Conspiracy theorists, then they surgest, that all of them (millions) is hiding all this, just so that George Bush can have his war........... the more i analyse what Conspiracy theorists, the more ludicrous and laughable it gets.

Conspiracy theorists: please come back to reality. 9/11 did happen, it was not a holograme. 9/11 was not planned by the US-government (too incompetent). Religous fanaics could easily have done such things, just like christian, jewish and other fanatics have done similar things in the past (The Crusades, Kamikazee-sucide-attacks, etc.).

reply
formatting help
[–] jeghaderperkersvin66 18 years ago

Why cant you conspiracy theorists accept the fact that evil is not entirely in the USA. There are idiots in the muslim-world as well. There are terrorists in the middleeast as their are in the western world. Muslims can be extremeists, just as christians, hindus and jews. It is not that far fetched that Muslim-terrorists did strike USA? They are clever and angry enough.

reply
formatting help
[–] juan-93 18 years ago

Sure it's completely credible that 19 hi-jackers were able to get past the most heavily guarded air space on Earth, gimme a break!

reply
formatting help
[–] sjensen-4 18 years ago

Yes i kinda was.
More likely than your explanation: remote controlled airplanes with the help of UFO´s, gimme a break 13-year-old.

reply
formatting help
[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] juan-93 18 years ago

Right, even more ridiculous is the idea that you morons have any idea of what really happened on 9-11.

reply
formatting help
[–] sjensen-4 18 years ago

Right, even more ridiculous is the idea that you morons have any idea of what really happened on 9-11.

Little boy: you don’t either. You are 13-years old, you believe in anything.
And that, you call all people you disagree with “morons” really highlights your immaturity.
But then again: you are a conspiracy theorists.


You know what makes a conspiracy theorist mind??
This:
The most paranoid mind is willing to believe any theory, as long as it does not make sense.

reply
formatting help
[–] juan-93 18 years ago

OOOH! You told me!
Listen here 12 year old your mommy is calling you. It's time to take your medicine with some kool-aid and go to bed.

reply
formatting help
[–] sjensen-4 18 years ago

OOOH! You told me!
Listen here 12 year old your mommy is calling you. It's time to take your medicine with some kool-aid and go to bed.

Wow, did you figure that one out all by yourself, i am impressed.

This is simply just awesome, the best pre-school-insults you can find: thanks juan93. They are so sweet and innocent.

LOL
Who needs entertainment? I´ve got you.

reply
formatting help
[–] juan-93 18 years ago

Who needs entertainment? I´ve got you.


Apparently you need entertainment and fantasies since you are so quick to believe the "official" 9-11 fairytale.

reply
formatting help
[–] sjensen-4 18 years ago

Apparently you need entertainment and fantasies since you are so quick to believe the "official" 9-11 fairytale.

Shure, whatever makes you happy.
But i know for a fact that all conspiracy theories are lies.
You want to beleive in the fairy-tale that the Martian-Zionistic-Neo-conservative-Shadow-American-Government planned 9/11.
I am glad that i know the truth (I.E. something that makes sense), unlike you.

PS: ive seen that you beleive that Exorcisms are true - I.E. you believe in black magic....... and you believe in these theories also.... i rest my case.

reply
formatting help
[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sjensen-4 18 years ago

Well good for you! You must have a crystal ball if you "know for a fact" that all conspiracies are lies!

They are, get over it.

Your ridiculous characterization of the nature of the conpiracies is not worth responding to.
Exorcisms have nothing to do with "black magic".

Exorcisms are a lie that the subconscience plays on religious idiots who wants attention. Devil-possession and exorcisms only takes place in very religious places.
It is a scam made by religious-nuts who want attention – get over it.
That you believe in what is a lie, that you believe in black-magic proves that you are willingly to believe anything that doesn’t make sense.
Science has killed God – get over it.

This is something else you obviously have no knowledge about, of course that has never stopped you from putting your foot in your mouth before.

Ok I don’t know how to make an Exorcisms, it is superstition – get over it.

Actually G.Bush and many of his fellow elitists are the ones who apparently believe in black magic as evidenced by their attendance at Bohemian Grove and membership in Skull-n-bones and similar occultic groups.

It is just a weird ritual – nothing more.
Secondly: have you even seen the credits on Bohemian Grove???
Only Alex Jones is credited for doing anything. And that tells you that it is a poorly made trash of a “documentary”.
I don’t think that these conspiracy theorists “documentaries” are anything but believable, namely because only 1 or at highest 2 persons have worked on it (all of Alex Jones documentaries have only credited him as have worked on it).
Compare on how many have worked on similar documentaries for Discovery- or the History-Channel. Where there are at least 15 – 30 people working on it. And especially in research, where these programs often have help from many, many experts - which these so-called conspiracy “documentaries” lack.
That you believe in what some cooked-up-guy has made in his basement is beyond me. All reel documentaries are made by more people, most for research – which all conspiracy “documentaries” lack.

I would try to debate with you on a more intelligent level (minus insults etc...) sticking to strictly to the issues, unfortunately I have limited internet access at the moment and typing up silly jabs is quicker than trying to write intelligent point by point analysis.

LOL. Intelligent? You? Then why do most of your latest answers to me have been in the form of “Sjensen you are an idiot”……. Don’t try to excuse yourself. You do not use any form of intelligent response, you just can’t accept that people have a different opinion than you, and then you attack them with low-insult…… then why do you hate George Bush that much? When you have so much in common.


It's clear I can't put up a worthwhile argument under these circumstances and constraints and even if i could I doubt we would change each other's minds, so if you want to end this pointless "debate" here and now that would be fine.

I see no point in prolonging it. You can never convince me that USA is a police state and that it is run by a secret Zionistic-Martian-Islamic-CIA-Government. Nor can you convince me that the most incompetent government in American history pulled of the biggest mass-murder on American soil, and got away with it, and that no one had any problems with all the dead.

If not I can't help but play along...

If you use your usual answers like: “Me thinks you idiots, you no think what me think, me best”
If you use you usual low insults then ill also play along.
So that all people that had potential of being a fellow conspiracy theorist, can see how immature all conspiracy theorists are, and backs out, and becomes a conspiracy-basher like me.

reply
formatting help
[–] juan-93 18 years ago

Your "reasoning" is incredibly simplistic and myopic.

Your smug self satisfied attitude is also contemptible especially considering that you were the one who initiated the immature nature of this correspondence.

You assume too much my friend and what's worse is you proclaim your uninformed assumptions as fact.Furthermore your belief that you are some how "winning" a debate and in some way championing the "conspiracy bashers"is equally ridiculous as is the notion that by exposing my supposed "immaturity" you are demonstrating the inherent silliness of all conspiracy truth seekers.

Clearly I am having fun with you (baiting you is too easy)and even if I was truly "immature" how could that be seen as representative of all 9-11 truth seekers?! Another grossly oversimplified assumption on your part.

The fact that you believe and can write "science has killed God" speaks volumes about you. But that's your choice and misfortune, you are free too indulge it to it's bitter end.

Who's the bigger fool, an idiot or the idiot who argues with him?

On that note I will leave you to your own woefully uninformed world view (unfortunately I don't have the time to educate you but hopefully some day you will see things more clearly.}.
Go ahead and reply in a thousand words or less but rest assured I am done with you.

reply
formatting help
[–] kingarthurup 18 years ago

Who's the bigger fool, an idiot or the idiot who argues with him?

On that note I will leave you to your own woefully uninformed world view (unfortunately I don't have the time to educate you but hopefully some day you will see things more clearly.}.


LOL... looks like the above "idiot" gave us the definition by arguing with the poster in his following paragraph. How is that for one thousand words or less?

reply
formatting help
[–] juan-93 18 years ago

I was "arguing" with above poster in my next paragraph?
If you read and comprehend what I wrote you would not characterize my statement as "arguing".
Unless of course, you are an idiot.

reply
formatting help
[–] sjensen-4 18 years ago

Your "reasoning" is incredibly simplistic and myopic.

You have no idea of what those words mean, and you know it.

Your smug self satisfied attitude is also contemptible especially considering that you were the one who initiated the immature nature of this correspondence.

Once again you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about 13-year old: you have just clipped that in from someone who gave you that answer.

You assume too much my friend and what's worse is you proclaim your uninformed assumptions as fact.Furthermore your belief that you are some how "winning" a debate and in some way championing the "conspiracy bashers"is equally ridiculous as is the notion that by exposing my supposed "immaturity" you are demonstrating the inherent silliness of all conspiracy truth seekers.

Once again this is something you have not written yourself, because it differs from your usual responses, which always sound like this: “You are an moron”, “You are an idiot” or “You don’t believe in what I do, therefore I am the best, because I don’t make mistakes”.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0462415/board/thread/45242233?d=48450955#48450955
http://imdb.com/title/tt0462415/board/thread/42482893?d=48451413#48451413
http://imdb.com/title/tt0462415/board/thread/36269128?d=48213020#48213020
I don’t know where you have copied that from, but I know that you haven’t written it, and don’t understand its meaning.

This post differs so much from your usual post, so I KNOW that you haven’t written it.

Furthermore you are immature; if you use the word “idiot” or “Moron” to answer long posts.

In the Future; please write your own posts, and do not go as low as to steal text from others.

Clearly I am having fun with you (baiting you is too easy)and even if I was truly "immature" how could that be seen as representative of all 9-11 truth seekers?! Another grossly oversimplified assumption on your part.

Baiting for me…..
MUHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Yeah right. Keep posting stuff you do not understand. Those words are simply too big for you.
Secondly: you are immature.


The fact that you believe and can write "science has killed God" speaks volumes about you..

Uhm…… How??
You believe in God, superstition and magic.
Answer me this: all the religions of the world claims that they are the one true religion. Many of them are polytheistic. Some are monotheistic – they claim that they is only one true God, then why are there so many religions??


But that's your choice and misfortune, you are free too indulge it to it's bitter end

Once again words you have no idea of what means.

Who's the bigger fool, an idiot or the idiot who argues with him?

Glad to see that you are admitting that you also are among those things you so simplistic call everybody who hasn’t got the same opinion as you.



On that note I will leave you to your own woefully uninformed world view (unfortunately I don't have the time to educate you but hopefully some day you will see things more clearly.}.
Go ahead and reply in a thousand words or less but rest assured I am done with you.

Hehe, it is very fun to see small children use copy and pasturing words he doesn’t understand.

reply
formatting help
[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sjensen-4 18 years ago

Wow!
For the record I am no longer arguing with you and all things 9-11 aside, you really are fascinating in a freakishly ridiculous sort of way.
Now you accuse me of no longer writing my own posts?!!!

Well yes you didn’t write the last post, because that was written by a mature person with a broad vocabulary, which you don’t have.

Tsk, tsk.
You should run and tell your mommy that I'm "cheating"!

Yet more evidence that this and most posts you write are done in this very immature manner.
But it is good to see that you have admitted that you have just copied someone else’s response to your immature attacks, and then have copied it, made it different, so that you can use it. You can tell where you have changed it, just look for the spelling errors.


HAWW HAWW HAWW!!!

Pathetic!

Yet more evidence that you are very immature, and that you don’t know what you are talking about, all the big words confuses you.

You really are a bird brained idiot!

Once again, you have shown your true nature.
When you can’t defend your viewpoints in a civilized manner, then you use your usual low personal insults, because you are a very immature little boy.

I'm glad you are SO impressed with my response so as to accuse (and as usual state as fact) your usual assanine assumptions with such naive conviction.

Please don’t use words you don’t understand. Plus you spelled “assanine”, it is spelled asinine.
And again with the 13 year old stuff?!!!

Aren’t you born in 1993? I.E. the Juan93 name?? You admitted to one of the other people who tries to debate as low as you do that you where indeed 13 years old. You have admitted it, so why all the denial.

Are you actually mentally/intellectually defective? You seem that way.

Once again you use this trick, when you can’t respond in a civilised manner, just because you have lost the argument.
It is funny that you of all people use the word mentally/intellectually defective to accuse other people, when most of your posts are either stolen from someone else or written very poorly by yourself (I.E. when you only use words “idiot” or “retarded” when you cant defend your feeble very poorly formulated point of view ) .

Go ahead, your turn.
I can't wait to see what you come up with next (though it's pretty easy to predict!).

Yes it is very easy to predict, I come up with something clever, and you respond in your usual poorly formulated answers with a lot of personal attacks, unless you steal some text as usual.

reply
formatting help
[–] juan-93 18 years ago

You are a laugh riot!
You better look out, me and my brainy pal are going to tag team you!
Haw Haw!!!
I admitted I am 13?!!! Hence my name Juan93?!!! WOW!
If this is an example of how you employ "logic" to reach your unshakeable conclusions then you've got your nerve questioning any body else's critical faculties! For the sake of indulgence, exactly where did I "admit" I was 13?

"Yes it is very easy to predict, I come up with something clever, and you respond in your usual poorly formulated answers with a lot of personal attacks, unless you steal some text as usual."

Yes it's easy to predict that you will try to project your own short comings onto me by bizarrely continuing to insist I am 13 years old, pointing out typos, and most pathetic of all refusing to respond intelligently by insisting that I do not write my own posts, thus avoiding the challenge of addressing the issues.

You are obviously easily confused and it's no wonder you cannot grasp the complexities involved with the 9-11 issues

Idiot.

reply
formatting help
[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] juan-93 18 years ago

No it's an appreciation of an accurate description of you and others of your ilk.
I'll tip my hat to you that the phrase you used happen to best fit the situation but I hardly think think you are the first person to so brilliantly string those few words together.
Don't get too happy about it.

reply
formatting help
[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sjensen-4 18 years ago

LOL, Juan93: Caught red-handed in stealing text from others, because you don’t have the intellect to come with something on your own. You are a thief and a liar just as I suspected.
How pathetic.
Please use your own written material in the future.
Are all conspiracy theorists this way?? Stealing text they have no idea what means and posting somewhere else?
Here is yet another post, which I know that you have not written your self:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0462415/board/thread/45674034?d=48629982#48629982

Now also notknightc6 have outwitted you, don’t you ever give up?? We all know that you don’t understand half of your posts, because you copy and paste them from other places - while most other people write their own posts.


PS: you will find this post of your interesting:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0462415/board/thread/27318644?d=43653674#43653674

reply
formatting help
[–] juan-93 18 years ago

Well when the shoe fits you know where to put it.
It's no wonder you would derive such smug self satisfaction over such an inconsequential percieved "victory" especially considering you cannot credibly discuss or debate the original subject of this board without hurling unsubstantiated insults and ad hominem attacks.
It is fun reading how you and your fellow dolts delude yourselves into thinking you are "outsmarting" somebody and further reveal your petty ubsurdity by gloating about it.

reply
formatting help
[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] juan-93 18 years ago

"Sounds like someone sure got their panties in a twist when they got caught just recycling different posters words which were addressed towards them, and trying to direct them at others."

Not really, it doesn't mean a thing to me at all, but since I'm sitting around here at work with some down time it makes for a diverting exercise in futility.

"Maybe you should scrounge around imdb for a better explanation, with all of the boards on this site, the chances of anyone catching you twice in two days are probably slim. Good luck."

I am man enough to admit that you can characterize my use of a phrase that you apparently lay undisputed claim to have coined as plagiarism or whatever, I'll give you that one. That's me a convicted plagiarist!
Sue me.
Now show me one other example of my notorious alleged theft of other people's words and thoughts.
The fact that you can't will only highlight your tendency to take a minor bit of information blow it far out of proportion and from this derive sweeping (inaccurate) generalizations which you refer to ad nauseum as undisputed truth.

I am looking for the truth, apparently you already possess it (at least as it suits you).

reply
formatting help
[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] juan-93 18 years ago

Idiot no.1 (notknight)accuses me of what he is guilty of as does idiot no.2 (that would be you sjenson) I point this out and use 3 words that idiot no.1 used and suddenly that's your smoking gun of how I cannot formulate my own thoughts?!
LOL!
Well I guess you (and your little notheaded buddy there) need to claim your victories (petty and miniscule as they may be) wherever you can.

Furthermore even if I did copy my posts (which you claim I myself do not understand?!) then how would I choose what to steal and apply to you?!!! Another brilliant example of your "reasoning" skills.
Since you love grasping at straws to support your misconceptions, be my guest and find where I "stole" the other posts that perplex you so profoundly.
Am I choosing other peoples posts at random which just so happen to apply to you even when I myself don't know what they mean?!!
Perhaps it is you who cannot understand the words I used to describe you and that is the source of your incredulity. Maybe you should look up these troublesome words and improve your vocabulary (if you are in fact capable of learning anything at this obviously stunted point in your development.).
This is a perfect example of your retarded reasoning "skills" and again a clue as to why you would be unable to excert the mental effort necessary to comprehend the complex issues behind 9-11.


Last of all it is laughable and quite pathetic that you would use as "proof" a sarcastic post were I obviously humor some moron (like yourself who was unfoundedly accusing me of being 13 years old} by facetiously agreeing with him then dismissing him with an insult. Oh did the fact that I was being sarcastic escape you? I hope not, you can't be THAT STUPID!
But then again that would just confirm your capacity for gullibility (and explain why you so wholeheartily accept the "official" 9-11 fairytale!) and explain alot in general about why you are such an idiot.

reply
formatting help
[–] sjensen-4 18 years ago

Idiot no.1 (notknight)accuses me of what he is guilty of as does idiot no.2 (that would be you sjenson) I point this out and use 3 words that idiot no.1 used and suddenly that's your smoking gun of how I cannot formulate my own thoughts?!
LOL!

Once again you use the word idiot, because you don’t have any sophisticated words in you very limited vocabulary.


Furthermore even if I did copy my posts (which you claim I myself do not understand?!) then how would I choose what to steal and apply to you

You don’t have to understand them, you just post them.
And secondly: you have just admitted that you are a thief, that you steal text, because you don’t have the brains to formulate it yourself.

Well I guess you (and your little notheaded buddy there) need to claim your victories (petty and miniscule as they may be) wherever you can.

I don’t know where you have stolen that, but the only words that maybe yours are: “notheaded”. Because it is spelled wrong.


Another brilliant example of your "reasoning" skills.

You do not know what reasoning means.


Since you love grasping at straws to support your misconceptions, be my guest and find where I "stole" the other posts that perplex you so profoundly.

Once again a passage which is too complex for your mind, where did you steal that?
But it is good that you admit that you steal text, in order to look clever, even though you failed miserable in that sense.

Perhaps it is you who cannot understand the words I used to describe you and that is the source of your incredulity

Keep dreaming, and stop stealing text, you thief.

Maybe you should look up these troublesome words and improve your vocabulary (if you are in fact capable of learning anything at this obviously stunted point in your development.).

Your teachers in school must have used that on you many times, since you can remember that passage so well.



This is a perfect example of your retarded reasoning "skills" and again a clue as to why you would be unable to excert the mental effort necessary to comprehend the complex issues behind 9-11.

Hahaha….. oh ma:n you try so hard to look big, but you fail again: “excert” is not a word.
And think that you said that you had a big vocabulary.


Last of all it is laughable and quite pathetic that you would use as "proof" a sarcastic post were I obviously humor some moron (like yourself who was unfoundedly accusing me of being 13 years old} by facetiously agreeing with him then dismissing him with an insult. Oh did the fact that I was being sarcastic escape you? I hope not, you can't be THAT STUPID!
But then again that would just confirm your capacity for gullibility (and explain why you so wholeheartily accept the "official" 9-11 fairytale!) and explain alot in general about why you are such an idiot.

Hehe, where did you steal all that??
I am just glad that you do not understand half of it, and the few times you added something yourself, you just have to look for the spelling errors.

reply
formatting help
[–] juan-93 18 years ago

Yes, yes you are correct. Now take your medicine and go to back to sleep.

I steal everything and don't understand what I write (AHA! I admit it! LOL!)

You are a perfect example of people who make up what they want to believe and deny anything that points to the contrary. Again this explains why you so blindly dismiss any information that does not confirm or support your naive world view in connection with 9-11.

Then again maybe you really have outwitted me!? Nobody could be as stupid, gullible and intellectually glib and lazy as you have demonstrated, well then again.
No, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

You've been kidding all along, right?

Well done.You got me.

P.S. Extra brownie points for pointing out a typo though you of all people should talk when it comes to misspelling and bad grammar!

P.P.S. Oh and by the way "nothead" was purposely misspelled as an obvious reference to notknight, again you really put on a good act.

reply
formatting help
[–] sjensen-4 18 years ago


Yes, yes you are correct. Now take your medicine and go to back to sleep.

I steal everything and don't understand what I write (AHA! I admit it! LOL!)

You are a perfect example of people who make up what they want to believe and deny anything that points to the contrary. Again this explains why you so blindly dismiss any information that does not confirm or support your naive world view in connection with 9-11.

Then again maybe you really have outwitted me!? Nobody could be as stupid, gullible and intellectually glib and lazy as you have demonstrated, well then again.
No, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Hehe, talk about living in a fantasy world.
Keep dreaming.
The more i debate with you, the more I hope that the police-state was real. Because then i was on the right-side, and you would be in a prison.
But that has not happened...... yet :)

But I still don’t trust anything you write, you have either stolen it somewhere, or have had help from your bigger brother.

P.S. Extra brownie points for pointing out a typo though you of all people should talk when it comes to misspelling and bad grammar!

Ok, find a place, where I have misspelled, I have done so, as many times as you.

P.P.S. Oh and by the way "nothead" was purposely misspelled as an obvious reference to notknight, again you really put on a good act.

LOL, yeah right, you have to say that now.


But a thief you remain.

reply
formatting help
[–] juan-93 18 years ago

It's obvious that you NEED to cling to the one (barely) valid point that you can produce to support your view.

"Last ditch effort"

Wow you sure paint a dire picture of this entire situation, believe me you and your ridiculous argument don't mean all that much to me.

"Theft"

Again if it makes you feel good and superior, then fine. You did real good when your brilliant mind composed such a profound thought.
Maybe your mommy will give you an extra cookie after nappy time.

Why don't you point out some more instances of my "theft" where I copied and pasted other peoples words.
Go on, I dare you.

reply
formatting help
[–] juan-93 18 years ago

Nice try but you won't fool me again.
Your obviously playing dumb again since you offer such a weak rebuttal to the points I make about you.
Plus your name calling (thief) is too pathetically juvenile to be taken seriously.
Come back only if your able to address some point pertinent to the 9-11 issues,

other than that have a nice day.

Let me try to get your wheels turning...

Were there drills being conducted on 9-11 of the very scenario that actually occurred (hi-jacked planes crashing into bldgs) which ultimately confused air defenses ability to respond to the actual disaster?
Did both Bush and Rice appear on tv and claim that they had no idea that such a thing could ever occur?

reply
formatting help
[–] lortepik912 18 years ago

Juan93 you have proven yourself to directly steal other peoples responces.......... why should we (I.E. we who believe that the world arent run by the Jewish-Neo-Con-world-mafia as you do) even speak to you??
You use something as infantile as stealing other peoples statements, and posting them as yours: very childish.
If you response to this, i will not answer: i am more grown up to be talking to the likes of you.

Also look at this site, just for you:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0462415/board/thread/27318644?d=43653674#43653674

and also
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

reply
formatting help
[–] juan-93 18 years ago

Juan93 you have proven yourself to directly steal other peoples responces.......... why should we (I.E. we who believe that the world arent run by the Jewish-Neo-Con-world-mafia as you do) even speak to you??

First of all I don't believe that "the world is run by the Jewish-Neo-Con-world-mafia"

Second, the fact that someone accuses me of what they themselves are guilty of begs for their words to be thrown back in their face.
I admit that I used the VERY SAME words that were used to attack me on ONE single occasion but this hardly proves that I "steal" other people's responses.
I defy and challenge you to site one single instance of my so called theft of other people's words or thoughts beyond the previously mentioned incident.

What is the point of refering me to one of my previous posts?

I will look into your Pentagon info when I have time to do so in depth.
In my opin ionthe issue of what hit the Pentagon is a moot one, the real question is why was something able to hit the Pentagon in the first place and who was really behind it.

reply
formatting help
[–] kool_kat77 18 years ago

juan...u must be making too much sense since i see you are getting the incessant tactics employed by the disinfo crowd. congratulations! where do i send your freedom medal?

reply
formatting help
[–] drengen_ortmann69 18 years ago

I admit that I used the VERY SAME words that were used to attack me on ONE single occasion but this hardly proves that I "steal" other people's responses.

Translation: you do steal.
Good that you admit it.
I hope that you will have the brains to make such statements yourself in the future (10 - 20 years).


I will look into your Pentagon info when I have time to do so in depth.

Hehe, you are so biased - you cant look past what you want to be the truth, to see the actual truth.
Before 9/11 happended you have already made up your mind that the Jewish-mafia and the Neo-conservatives of USA is behind every bad thing that have ever happended in the world: The Jews, Neo-cons and CIA was behind 9/11, WW 1 and 2, Al-quada, the plaque, that the 4 recent popes died and the 2 recent ice-ages - that is according to what and your fellow cultmembers think.

I must repeat this quote from you:

I will look into your Pentagon info when I have time to do so in depth.

I really think this must be one of the dumbest things you have ever said. You claim that you know everything, and that you want to be taken seriously. But then you show that you dont want to read something that could proof that you are wrong.

You are afraid of the truth.

reply
formatting help
[–] juan-93 18 years ago

Translation: you do steal.
Good that you admit it.
I hope that you will have the brains to make such statements yourself in the future (10 - 20 years).

Drengen, using words that someone else wrote on one occcasion hardly qualifies me as a "thief" in the way that you and others proclaim.
Persistance in repeating this pathetic attack only illustrates the fact that you must grasp at straws in your efforts to belittle me.

I will look into your Pentagon info when I have time to do so in depth.

What part of this statement do you not understand? And what part of it leads you to make the following slanderous and completely erroneous assumption...

Hehe, you are so biased - you cant look past what you want to be the truth, to see the actual truth.
Before 9/11 happended you have already made up your mind that the Jewish-mafia and the Neo-conservatives of USA is behind every bad thing that have ever happended in the world: The Jews, Neo-cons and CIA was behind 9/11, WW 1 and 2, Al-quada, the plaque, that the 4 recent popes died and the 2 recent ice-ages - that is according to what and your fellow cultmembers think.

You are in TOTAL error. If anything this statement implies that it is YOU who make up what you want to believe based on your own prejudiced assumptions.

How do you translate my statement into meaning that I do not want to consider information that is contrary to my stated opinions?!!!

"You are afraid of the truth."

Considering the completely unfounded and incorrect assertions you make about me and my motivations I would say it is YOU who has little regard and is afraid of the truth.


reply
formatting help
[–] SerDai 18 years ago

I saw you posted some stuff at the "Dark secrets inside the bohemian grove" page too, claiming it's not a real documentary because there's only 1 guy in the credits.

Let me ask you this: have you even seen the movie itself, or you just rant on it because it makes you feel special?

In the documentary, alex jones goes undercover in the elite's resort and captures their rituals on film. It doesn't matter if you believe what Alex Jones has to say in general; fact is - the most powerful men in the world bow to a giant owl, an ancient babylonian god. If you think that's ok, please add the following signature to your messages: "P.S.: I like to live in a world where my leaders bow to Moloch", so people can safely ignore your messages.

You fail to give any facts, but apparently you have no problems with logical fallacies. In all the posts on this topic, you've kept accusing the others of insults and making analogies between conspiracy theorists and UFO-believers but didn't bring any facts to backup your claims.

Do you even claim anything? Except liking the fact that your leaders bow to Moloch ;)

reply
formatting help
[–] juan-93 18 years ago

These people don't like to talk to issues like Bohemian Grove because they say it's "crazy" or "nuts" or whatever, without being able to deny that it's true.
Yes it's nuts but it's also true.

reply
formatting help
[–] edisonoside2004 17 years ago

Only if they are in the payroll of the CIA like Bin Laden. That or they have "MUSLIM MAGIC" and a genie from Baghdad that granted them three wishes.

reply
formatting help
[–] Bandu 17 years ago

Popular mechanics has been debunked itself . They use Strawman arguments ..not the actual arguments of substance.


They are right that the Planes engine fuel didnt melt the Steel ..as that is impossible. Problem there

HOWEVER:
If the steel didnt melt then why were there thermal photographs showing molten hot metal under all 3 (yes WTC7 included) WTC towers??
Why is there video proof of this molten metal ..this molten metal was burning up to 3000 degrees for WEEKS after .. this is well documented.
Why was there visible molten metal falling from the WTC just before it collapsed? It was spewing out of 1 of the windows. NIST says this is aluminium buring from the plane. FALSE . Aluminium does not burn bright orange..instead it burns silver. NIST knows this and they give a possible argument that the colour is due to the aluminium getting mixed in with normal carbon fuel (office utensils etc) .. FALSE again. It still does not burn orange . Instead the normal fuels float on top of the molten aluminium (much like the cooled black rock floating on lava)

Other problems with this "pancake theory" is the 'Squibs'.

The squibs/puffs of smoke are from individual windows. We all see this. If floors were impacting each other as 'explained' by the pankage theory the squibs/puffs of smoke would be 1 big dust ejection coming from every single window on that particular floor!.

Another problem they miss(lead) the 'ordinary joe' about is if a pancake collapse occured then where the heck is the 47 massive steel core? If it were a pancake collapse these massive structures would still be sticking out from the base. Problem is they were weakened at the base with explosives just before the planes crashed. Go ahead and ask 9/11 hero William Rodriguez , the last civilian to lave the WTC ...actually ,you dont need to , he tells you his story here : http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5770036334651717094&q=rodriguez

The reason for the above points is because Thermite (thermate) was used to melt , cut and blast the beams aswell as murdering US civilians US/UK soldiers Afgani's , Iraqi's and the Western worlds civil rights.

You can add Iran civilians to that list pretty soon.

If you are so sure about your government then please read this :
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

reply
formatting help
[–] ivan_sapp 17 years ago

no i didn't read all the *beep* above, but in skimming through it i didn't see anyone mention the cell phone calls or the fake bin laden tape. So please in order to truly convince me, forget the issues concerning the buildings etc. and focus on the smaller claims; how were these calls made from the planes and why do they seem to be incredibly scripted? why does bin laden look so unlike bin laden and why is he writing with his wrong hand? why is there no scratch on the pentagon lawn?if you can answer these questions, please do so, if not, then forget it.

reply
formatting help
[–] QMan000 17 years ago

Popular mechanics often reports on how cool the US army is and all of our state of the art weapons systems and technologies that can be used for spying on other nations. So why should we listen to a militant magazine that supports remote observation, it is like listening to two crappy magicians, one a mute and one an obese slob talking about why CTists are failures at life. If you don't no what i am talking about search for Penn&Teller and 9/11, maybe I will get a link.

reply
formatting help
[–] fresh_ 17 years ago

erm... what just happened?

reply
formatting help
[–] filmbuff1974 15 years ago

"Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go to Google.com, type in the search phrase "World Trade Center conspiracy" and you'll get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites. More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks. "



Three thousand books is a lot of conjecture. Despite Popular Mechanics assertions to the contrary, 9/11 was an inside job. There are just too many holes in the official story. History will reveal the truth and hopefully the futuristic scenario that Alex Jones' documentaries point out as a very real possibility will be a close call after we all wake up in this country.


Live Long and Prosper!

reply
formatting help
[–] joshua_skye 14 years ago

I do not believe the official report and I don't need to wander off into Alex Jones territory to justify it. Dubya lied about everything and I do mean everything. His "election" was even fraudulent! Why would I even remotely believe him about 9/11? He was such a dishonest public figure he would not testify publicly about the attacks. There is simply nothing trustworthy about Dubya or anyone in his administration.

Likewise, Alex Jones is dishonest. He lies pathologically in order to justify his radical, far-right paranoia. No one remembers his Y2K shenanigans in which he told his audience that the world was at war subsequently sending people running for the hills. No one seems to remember his homophobic and racist rants that are on-par with Klan ideology. He is nothing more than a spokesmen bought and paid for by conservative slanted capitalism. Basically, Alex Jones is the underground equivalent of Glenn Beck.

reply
formatting help
[–] filmbuff1974 14 years ago


"Likewise, Alex Jones is dishonest. He lies pathologically in order to justify his radical, far-right paranoia. No one remembers his Y2K shenanigans in which he told his audience that the world was at war subsequently sending people running for the hills. No one seems to remember his homophobic and racist rants that are on-par with Klan ideology. He is nothing more than a spokesmen bought and paid for by conservative slanted capitalism. Basically, Alex Jones is the underground equivalent of Glenn Beck. "--joshua skye


I can't say I agree with everything you said in your posts. But, I have come to see that Alex Jones is all about running a business. There is a lot of duplicity that I sense but really can't pin anything on. I wish I had heard those pre- Y2K rants, but I wasn't into the conspiracy theory movement then.

On the other hand, eccentrics like Alex Jones keeps the public awake and aware about very real government abuses. Alex Jones hucksterism aside, there is much that is covertly going on that needs to be brought out into the light and examined by a sleeping populace.











If you love and support Michael Jackson 100%, copy & paste this into your signature. We love MJ!

reply
formatting help
About | Contact | Privacy | Terms | Standards | Contribute
Top Movie Discussions
Civil War Discussion | Dune: Part Two Discussion | The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare Discussion | Abigail Discussion | Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire Discussion | Immaculate Discussion | Monkey Man Discussion | Challengers Discussion | Late Night with the Devil Discussion | Kung Fu Panda 4 Discussion | The First Omen Discussion | Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire Discussion | Bade Miyan Chote Miyan Discussion | Love Lies Bleeding Discussion | Arcadian Discussion
Copyright © 2017 - 2024 MovieChat LLC

MovieChat is not affiliated with IMDb, IMDb Message Boards, or Reddit