investigating 9/11

[GoodGame]

Anybody know who all the guys in this picture is?

Looks like a scene from the X-Files movie: Fight the Future.

 

[Bamspeedy]

He went on to describe an "explosion" that he heard, and then white smoke on the plane from an undetermined location.

Earlier reports have said that a previously unidentified passenger, Edward Felt of Matawan, N.J., said in a 911 call from a restroom that he saw a puff of smoke and heard an explosion, leading some to cite this as evidence that the plane was shot down by the military to prevent it from crashing into sensitive targets. But the 911 dispatcher, John Shaw, and others who have heard the tape, including Mr. Felt's wife, Sandra Felt, say he made no mention of smoke or an explosion when he said, ''We're going down.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...934A15750C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

 

[sourboy]

Oh yeah? Debunk this!

the shadows on his face are opposite the shadows on the railing.... it's sad this photo got as much attention as it did.

 

[Phlegmak]

the shadows on his face are opposite the shadows on the railing.... it's sad this photo got as much attention as it did.

Somebody cut Narz's head off and the head of that tourist, and stuck Narz's head on that tourist's body.

 

[sourboy]

lol thought he looked too familiar.

 

[Sharwood]

Anybody know who all the guys in this picture is?

Those in white are Illuminati. The rest are merely their mindwiped slaves.

 

[Death_Machine]

It wasn't inconceivable to me, or pretty much anyone else that felt American foreign policy at the time was going to bite us in the ass.

I'm not a fan of us being the world's police force & I can understand that point of view. We should have stuck with the Monroe Doctrine & let that be it.

I also believe that the Government would actually shoot down an airplane and then not tell us. Imagine the PR hit that would be.

TWA flight 800, do some looking into that one.

But did they play an active part? Certainly not. They are both simply incompetent, but this is yet another excellent example of exactly how incompetent they truly were. Even Carter warned Bush about the Al Qaeda before leavling office, and Bush decided not to pursue the programs that he had already set up.

You're so far to the left you might fall off the political compass. So the failed president Jimmy Carter warned Bush did he?

 

[BasketCase]

I wanted to talk to you about a controverstial subject that many people dont want to talk about.

Bad idea with me around.

The reason I don't believe any of that conspiratorial bullcrap is this: all the specifics that point to a conspiracy are full of mistakes. Here's an example:

Like how steel cant melt under the fires because they werent hot enough.

This, by itself, is one hundred percent correct. Structural steel will not melt in a fire; you need about twice as much heat as burning jet fuel produces. But here's where the mistake lies: you don't have to melt the steel to bring down the building. Steel gets weaker as you heat it, at a linear rate. In a jet-fuel combustion, structural steel loses about half its strength. Oh, and it also expands.

And, when the skeleton of a building is reduced to half-strength, not to mention twisted out of shape as the structural metal expands.....what happens?


Every other conspiracy theory has the same problem. The puffs of air expelled from the windows, that suggest explosive charges? They're actually puffs of air being forced out the windows by the collapse of the floor above. The sounds of explosions? They're actually the sounds of collapsing concrete and steel--in a building with interior air spaces. That theory about thermite? News flash: thermite is a simple mix of aluminum powder and iron oxide (actually, there are many metal/oxide combinations that produce thermite-style compounds--look up "thermite" on Wikipedia for some fun stuff!) , and the ingredients for a thermite mix already exist naturally in many buildings.

And, most of the conspiracy theories around the attacks have another problem: the people proposing them make a premature leap from "it could have happened" to "it DID happen". The reason I laugh at your crackpot theories is because it's not enough to say it could have happened and there's no other explanation. You must prove that it DID. And nobody has.

So, until somebody produces said proof, I present to you an assortment of "laughing in your face and giving you no respect" smilies:

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The puffs of air as a indication of explosions really is hilarious. And people hearing a bang, so it must be controlled demo is as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

Listen to that sound. Nothing like the dull boom you hear in case of the WTC.

Notice the line of puffs of smoke. Notice the visible explosions. Notice the sound of a series of explosions. The idea that you can bring the WTC down with a couple of well places explosions is ludicrous. You need a carefully timed, series of explosions.

The way Basket describes it, slabs of concrete falling being mistaken for explosions is far more credible. Most people couldn't tell apart the sound of an explosion to simply a big noise from falling concrete slabs.

 

[Munch]

And, most of the conspiracy theories around the attacks have another problem: the people proposing them make a premature leap from "it could have happened" to "it DID happen".

Quite. It is one thing to acknowledge that any government does not always tell the (complete) truth, and to take their 'official story' for any event with a pinch of salt. They are after all in the business of getting re-elected. It is something else completely to claim that - in this case at least - the illuminati did it, or that it was part of a Bush administration master plan to (amongst other parts of their master agenda) give them a casus belli however convoluted for Afghanistan/Iraq.

 

[BasketCase]

Whoa--did me and Ziggy actually agree on something???

Hold the presses.

 

[Sharwood]

Whoa--did me and Ziggy actually agree on something???

Hold the presses.

See what happens when you post something intelligent? Zing!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Whoa--did me and Ziggy actually agree on something???

Hold the presses.

We need more 9/11 threads

 

[Aegis]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...934A15750C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

First the dispatcher says he (Edward Felt) described hearing an explosion, and now the dispatcher denies it? Which is it? Did the newspaper just make it up? Was it a simple mistake (how do you mistake hearing that statement?) on the part of the dispatcher, or are they being told to deny it? They still have not released the voice recorder in the cockpit or his 911 phone call, have they? And if they do release them, how do we know they were not doctored?

TWA flight 800, do some looking into that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800

What about it?

 

[Bamspeedy]

First the dispatcher says he (Edward Felt) described hearing an explosion, and now the dispatcher denies it? Which is it? Did the newspaper just make it up? Was it a simple mistake (how do you mistake hearing that statement?) on the part of the dispatcher, or are they being told to deny it?

Your article does not have a quote from the dispatcher (granted, my article didn't either), so I suspect the reporter in your article was merely repeating old rumors/false information (he didn't verify all his facts).

Edit: Upon further research I found that it is the dispatcher (Shaw) who says that Felt never described an explosion, while Shaw's supervisor (Cramer) is the one who claims Felt talked of an explosion.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=edward_felt

Cramer is the only one that is making this claim, and an explosion is not mentioned in any of the other phone calls, so I suspect Cramer is simply mistaken (or lying on purpose).

In any major news events there is always alot of false information and conflicting reports that gets out. Just look at the recent shooting in Germany and the conflicting reports about what kind of gun he had and then the bogus 'warning' he had supposedly made on a chat forum.

They still have not released the voice recorder in the cockpit or his 911 phone call, have they? And if they do release them, how do we know they were not doctored?

See, that's just the thing. You whine about 'the truth being hid from us' yet when you are given the truth you just plug your ears and shout "It's fake! It's been doctored!" That is why your requests for more information is ignored.

 

[Bast]

Truthers...

 

[Formaldehyde]

TWA flight 800, do some looking into that one.

Um, guess what? That's another completely unfounded consipracy theory.

You're so far to the left you might fall off the political compass.

Ha. I'm actually a centrist according to the political compass. But what does it know? You are obviously an expert on the subject, and anybody who disagrees with you is a communist. Right.

So the failed president Jimmy Carter warned Bush did he?

Oops. I obviously meant Clinton.

And unlke GWB, Jimmy Carter was no failure. He simply didn't have the backing of his own party so it was rather impossible for him to get anything done. After all, the only reason he got elected was due to the backlash from RM Nixon's disgrace of this country. He was actually the only president this country has ever had who was truly independent of the political parties since the earliest days of this country. See Mr. Smith Goes to Washington for further details.

The entire movie: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-897129633961255565

 

[Ecofarm]

But Sandy Berger destroyed documents from the national archives that showed Clinton should have done something. Right?

Perhaps if Clinton did not have his archives stolen and destroyed, we would have had the information needed to take appropriate cautions.

 

[Aegis]

Your article does not have a quote from the dispatcher (granted, my article didn't either), so I suspect the reporter in your article was merely repeating old rumors/false information (he didn't verify all his facts).

Edit: Upon further research I found that it is the dispatcher (Shaw) who says that Felt never described an explosion, while Shaw's supervisor (Cramer) is the one who claims Felt talked of an explosion.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=edward_felt

Cramer is the only one that is making this claim, and an explosion is not mentioned in any of the other phone calls, so I suspect Cramer is simply mistaken (or lying on purpose).

Felt's phone call was the last on record. If the explosion happened right before his call, of course there might not be any other mention in the other calls since they would have proceeded the explosion.

Cramer did listen in on the phone conversation as it was occurring, so it was not second-hand information.

In any major news events there is always alot of false information and conflicting reports that gets out. Just look at the recent shooting in Germany and the conflicting reports about what kind of gun he had and then the bogus 'warning' he had supposedly made on a chat forum.

Fair enough. =o)

See, that's just the thing. You whine about 'the truth being hid from us' yet when you are given the truth you just plug your ears and shout "It's fake! It's been doctored!" That is why your requests for more information is ignored.

Who is whining? I don't see any whining. I'm not shouting that 'OMG IT IS TEH FAKE!" either. I implied that it was a possibility by questioning it. If you deny that it's a possibility, then you're just as bad as the paranoid people who believe the whole thing is a Bush conspiracy.

It is not out of the realm of possibility that the government shot it down. In all likelihood, that's what happened. Cheney even gave the order to shoot it down.

I don't think it's a vast conspiracy to cover up their dirty deed; I merely think that the government was taking advantage of the situation in order to put a good spin on an otherwise dire situation. It would not be unreasonable for the government to step in and put a gag order on certain people in the interest of "National Security."

Either the Government did their job in protecting the city by shooting down the airplane, or they were negligent in allowing the airplane to run it's course. As feckless as the Bush administration has been in the past, I do not believe they would have screwed up something this important. I believe they did what needed to be done and then put out a flowery scenario to give the country a much-needed morale boost, not because they are ashamed of what they did.

Do I believe that the passengers could have risen up and cause the crash? Yes.
Do I believe that the government shot the airplane down? Yes.

Which do I think is more likely?

I believe the government preventing yet another airplane to crash into a major metropolitan area, most likely the capital or White House, is more likely. I'm sorry, but I just don't see the government allowing that to happen, especially since they knew about the flight and where it was headed and had plenty of time for F-15's to intercept it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

But Sandy Berger destroyed documents from the national archives that showed Clinton should have done something. Right?

Perhaps if Clinton did not have his archives stolen and destroyed, we would have had the information needed to take appropriate cautions.

Talk about irrelevant...

It is not out of the realm of possibility that the government shot it down.

No, it's not. Unfortunately, none of the facts seem to bear that premise out.

In all likelihood, that's what happened.

Wow. I think you should get one of these: