There are a lot of half-truths in this movie. They frame every aspect to make it seem sinister as possible and also ignore contradictory evidence. They take a lot of statements out of context

I'd be happy to explain the skeptical position and answer the questions they provide. If you want to talk about anything specific, please share with me what section you think has the best evidence for a conspiracy. I'll give you the parts they leave out to intentionally mislead you.

This one is free:

Q) Where are the interceptors?

8:34 Boston contacts NORAD about Flight 11 being hijacked

8:37 NORAD puts fighters on alert

8:47 Flight 11 hits north tower; Fighters just taking off... fighter parked off long island because they are unsure where Flight 11 is

9:01 NY Controllers notice Flight 175 is off course

9:03 NY Controllers call NORAD to tell them about 175

9:03 Flight 175 crashes into the south tower

9:15 Controllers in Washington are told flight 77 is missing by Indianapolis

9:32 DC Controllers call NORAD and tell them Flight 77 is missing

9:37 Flight 77 crashes into Pentagon

9:28 Cleavland loses contact with Flight 93

9:43 Herndon (VA) controller calls the FAA and tells them United 93 is not responding and is off course

10:00 A pilot sees Flight 93 rocking its wings reports it

10:03 Flight 93 crashes

10:14 Controllers call NORAD and tell Flight 93 is down

It is all on tape here:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/08/nyregion/911-tapes.html

A) They did not have enough time to intercept. Compare the time.

So all that bullshit in the middle about the military and Cheney means nothing.

The military did not have enough time to respond. Yeah, if they somehow knew from Flight 11 that there were 4 planes hijacked, they could have intercepted them. But that is 20/20 hindsight something they did not have on 9/11.

Wargames did not reduce the level of alert fighters on duty. The wargames going on at the time was a Russian bomber over Alaska. -The month long- training exercise could include hijackings.

There was 4 planes on alert for that section of the United States and it had been that way since 1997 when Clinton started closing bases.

Guess what? Today, there is a total of ~18 alert fighters for the entire United States and they fixed the system of controllers reporting to NORAD. The approximate time to respond -TODAY- is 10 minutes. (they don't release the actual number so this is estimated)

But we are looking at the problem with 20/20 hindsight. They didn't know how many planes were hijacked.

The reason they got 300 in the air so fast is because every military person saw what was happening and ran the hell there to every military base to get 300 planes in the air. Which is pretty damn remarkable.

Are you going to pay all those people required to get 300 planes in the air to stand on alert? 24/7 for approximately 1 hijacking ever 10 years in US airspace?

Oh and the advace warning stuff is all 20/20 hindsight too. The president gets all kinds of intelligence on this country and that rebel looking to do this act here. It is really easy to look back and see with full clarity what should have happened. Predicting the future? Not so easy. What do you think the Pentagon does every day? They are trying to predict the future.

When when you do try and predict the future, like say, someone using liquids to blow up a plane, every soccer mom yells at the government why she can't take her three bottles of wine on the plane now.

My favorite part about your post, is how it is quite possibly the only post in this thread offering a legitimate rebuttal to the insanely-biased "facts" from the OP, yet every response dismisses it simply because it doesn't fit the hive-mind.

Great job on taking the time to collect and post this. You're the reason I can still have a sliver of faith in the American public every time the truthers piss themselves over some new post.

There are 50 questions in the video, he doesn't answer a single one. Not a rebuttal.

[deleted]

You got me mixed up, I'm in agreement with your post. I said Dimension has not rebutted a single point.

This is probably the best 911 video to date.

Well I was curious how I was being upvoted in a thread so clearly compromised, maybe I didn't word it properly.

Thanks for posting this, it has crystallized an already solid position. Dimension has been around for years and only pops out in these threads. He has a somewhat supernatural ability to rise to the top without saying much at all.

edit: where did you get your alias? I recall a similar named "debunker".

It's called slidng.

I meant more of a rebuttal to the idea that the video expresses as a whole, not so much as a Q&A kind of thing.

Sorry you felt the need to be so critical, I should have specified.

Sorry you felt the need to be so critical

Isn't that exactly what you're praising /u/_Dimension for doing?

No. I meant it to be a passive aggressive line against his being critical of my phrasing.

yup, great job tackling that straw man...

Explain or indicate the straw man you feel was presented.

No actual rebuttal has been made, the points listed were discussed in the video

The counter position also follows a hive-mind. A much greater hive-mind than the conspiracy position.

That's such a worthless thing to say. Why do people insist on spouting emotional drivel on topics with the gravity of one of the worst disasters in modern history?

My post was emotional?

I don't think every response has dismissed it has it? I see some genuine questions (ie the issue of the Passport being found in near mint condition) being answered with conjecture and some discussion.

Yes, you're completely correct, I was being unfair in my generalizations.

edit: This wasn't sarcasm, I just didn't see the need to elaborate. Sorry if it came across as such.

legitimate rebuttal

I see nothing of a rebuttal.

Feel free to read my response to the other comment saying the exact same thing.

My question is, why do they keep making movies with false shit. So this person must be making a lot of money of this movie then. So the real conspiracy is that these movies are fake and all this conspiracy stuff is for money? I don't get it.

Spend the time and resources to put together a 5 hour video like this and distribute it and then let me know when you break even... I really doubt anyone's getting rich from this video.

I know that's my point. People find a few flaws in a 5 hour video and say it's bunk and some kind of conspiracy within a conspiracy.

No, bunk is fucking bunk. It doesn't make it a conspiracy within a conspiracy, it makes it fucking bunk.

Junk.

Un-sourced.

Not scientific.

Irrational.

Un-founded.

But if you REALLY still want to believe ANYTHING, even when it's proved fucking FALSE, so be it.

Maybe they get off to it.

strawman: its all posters like _Dimension are good for

[deleted]

The live action drama, as portrayed by the entertainment networks was plagued with poor acting, plot holes, continuity problems, etc. They should be ashamed of such a shitty production. I'm sure glad that Hollywood stepped in to remake the story into something now at least plausible.

There are actually many conspiracy theories that the 9/11 and Chemtrail stuff are made up and funded by the government to convince people that are fearful that the government is WAY more capable than they are and distract them from actual issues.

There are actually many conspiracy theories that the Big Mac and dogs are made up and funded by the government to convince people that are fearful that the government is WAY more capable than they are and distract them from actual issues.

Both clearly exist. There is no theory. There is evidence that blows this out of the water. They were sloppy, and they will pay for their crimes.

Fear mongering can be profitable. Just look at Alex Jones and Richard Gage.

Or look at the bush admin.

Exactly!

So the real conspiracy is that these movies are fake and all this conspiracy stuff is for money?

Fucking bingo. Unfortunately it seems most posters here might only realize this shit when they've either bought into it hook line & sinker, or actually given their hard earned money.

No kids, Beck, and Alex Jones aren't interested in "enlightening" you, they want you to spread their "word" which in turn gives them attention, and money. It's probably one of the most ironic things about modern conspiracy. It's the fact that, the only reason these people promote them is for money from gullible fucking halfwits, who are soon parted from their money.

And you fucking buy it.

Because you aren't armed with sufficient faculties to discern rational conclusions from fucking fairy tales.

Glen Beck? Alex Jones? You must be a brand new anti-conspiracy theorist.

nah, just being lazy, and a bit buzzed at the time.

I honestly think they make these movies because of one of two reasons (or even both):

1. It's what they whole-heatedly believe happened that day, and feel it's their duty to offer their opinion to the public (albeit in a very dramatized fashion).

2. They know it's a high-value topic, and would get them lot's of publicity and/or money for making it.

Just another piece of the propaganda. Showing that control truly is top down and exterior to our republic.

Quite the analytical comment. Can't tell which side of the discussion you're taking though, care to clarify?

I mean, there's not even really any links or anything. He's just saying things also, how do we know what he's saying is true? I'm willing to hear any side, but we should be just as critical of anyone bringing any information to the table and not just accept anything as truth without evidence.

The most important thing to pay attention to is the time.

If you get one thing out of my post, is realize NORAD had no time to respond.

The sources from the time is from the NYTimes timeline in which the actual recordings are played.

Yes, there is also conjecture under which contains my opinion. But I separated it with a line so that doesn't count. ;)

Between 8:37 and 10:03, there was no time to respond? That's close to 1.5 hours. If you actually watch the documentary linked, you see how it was a series of conveniences that led to this massive failure:

• Key people in the chain of command were missing that day.
• Simultaneous training exercises that were not canceled drew most of the planes away.
• "Confusion" caused the few planes that were around to be ordered to fly away from the hijack zones.

If you believe the official 9/11 story, this represents a massive failure of the U.S. military. You'd think people would be more concerned about that.

Oh most definitely; I'm just glad that someone even brought the opposite side of the discussion to the table in the first place in more of an organized manner.

My favorite part about your post, is how you get mad at freedom of speech, especially when it comes from people of prestige.

Feel free to quote where exactly my post criticized free speech.

[deleted]

there are other conspiracies out there yo. It's not an all-or-nothing deal.

But this is the one with the most evidence and the largest impact probably in American History

Really? Maybe he wants to maybe learn something, maybe he wants to be entertained. I love reading this shit and I don't believe 99% of it

Only reason im here... gettin off to the absurd... its like my daytime coast to coast with george noory

I love how fast you can get from "911 might've been an inside job" to "Illuminati controlled by lizard shapeshifters"

If I had a nickel for every false flag... I'd have a shitload of nickels

Wait, how do you know about the lizard shape shifters?

Sometimes they unshift for a second during interviews DUHHHH

Assuming this is an actual question:

I enjoy reading nearly all of the posts on /r/conspiracy because some of them are actually thought-provoking and/or based on legitimate footage of war-crimes and ignored rights.

I don't feel the need to believe everything posted here out of blind faith, and the 9/11 conspiracies are definitely a part of that.

That being said, WTC7 is some weird fucking shit, and I really hope we find out what the hell actually went on there, but I have a really hard fucking time believe the government sanctioned the attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC.

You know good and well that your government LIED to start the wars in VietNam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, killing millions of people, but you cant accept the fact that they would kill a few Americans in the process?

Talk about denial!

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

I wouldn't normally humor this kind of post with a response, but the fact that you felt the need to include the Wikipedia page... I cant stop laughing!

Since I'm already typing this though, I guess you're right, putting things into a more historical perspective really does make me question just how low the US government will stoop.

For those of you playing along at home, that's (almost) how a good discussion should go on this topic.

It's just strange to me 9/11 is the one conspiracy we focus on the most and the one we have the most evidence for I feel that of you don't believe something weird went on that day then other conspiracies like chemtrails must be asinine

It's focused on the most because the idea that everything done in it's name is bogus leads to pretty much the ultimate questions about governments and their intentions for people.

I won't pretend that I have the official report tattooed on my arm or named my kid after it or anything; after reading the official reports and then reading the kinda of information like that found in the OP, I'm definitely more than skeptical.

But, some of the "conspiracies" are just too lizard-men for me.

Prime example:

• Passports found and easily identified? No fucking way, 0/10 US Gov.

• 2^nd plane was a missile/drone? I don't even understand how people can think that, and not be committed as a result.

Well yeah a passport could survive the jet fuel fires but steal couldn't ? About the plane I mean we all know two planes hit the towers but there is no evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon. I mean the most heavily secured building in the world doesn't have a security camera? That's fairly outlandish

no evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon

http://imgur.com/a/2Mkbl

Where is the rest of the plane ? The only thing you can really see is an engine but it's much to small for a passenger jet

So your issue isn't so much that there's no debris, but not the amount of debris you personally expect to see?

What about the debris that was actually there? Pieces of fuselage with American Airlines logos, landing gear, wheels, diffuser case, engine rotor, etc? How did they get there?

This is smaller but it still applies

500mph is fast.

Most plane crashes are by planes that don't want to crash. The pilots do everything to slow the planes down before they crash in order to hopefully survive the crash.

Terrorists on the other hand, flew above speed into things purposely.

So they turned into smaller pieces and ended up in the building.

Okay if the plane was obliterated where was the black box? The indestructible one? Also why isn't there any videos showing a plane hitting the pentagon only videos of an explosion

Indestructible as much as the Titanic is unsinkable. You can google about them and read about it. They are designed to survive, but it isn't impossible to be destroyed either.

Flight 77 and 93 were found.

Flight 11 and 175 in the towers, were probably still in the building when it collapsed.

Generally the best place to survive a plane crash, a conventional one that crashes into the ground, the tail usually survives. Cuz it is in the back and it works like the crumple zone in your car. Everything in front, including squishy people cushion it.

Things pilots generally do when they know they are about to crash:

1. the pilots slow down

2. they do everything they can to stay in the air

3. they try not to hit the ground very hard

So there are usually large parts left over.

Terrorists on the other hand, fly maximum power into things. So smaller pieces. Things do survive, but they aren't very large. There are personal effects of passengers(credit cards, wallets, jewelry, even a paper wedding invitation) that survived too.

I don't think they had the collapse of a 110 story building in mind when they designed the blackbox.

Okay so why isn't there a definitive video of a plane hitting the pentagon

Well there is. But they aren't good enough if you recall. Two cameras captured the impact. But they are 320x200 @ 1 frame per second. Your camera on your phone is a thousand times better then those cameras. They weren't designed to capture a plane moving at 500mph. And my phone camera today still takes kinda crappy pictures. I would have some doubt at it capturing anything moving at 500mph.

There was another camera but it was destroyed at the impact area. Why they didn't have a remote recording device? Hell if I know. But that is what they say happened. I doubt it would be pointed up anyway.

There exists three more camera that might have caught the plane.

Traffic cam that wasn't recorded. (why would I need to see the traffic two days ago? makes sense)

The gas station video and the hotel video. Those were the videos that the FBI took that Loose Change made you think was part of the conspiracy.

They were released in 2006. They show nothing because again, video recording devices weren't the greatest thing at the time.

Well why doesn't the Pentagon have more cameras? Well for one, it has a full time security army around it at all times. An army that is really good at stopping the occasional lone nut, but very bad at stopping planes.

Your movies lie to you. The Pentagon isn't some ultra modern building with sleek huge monitors recording everything going on around it. It is just an office building. Yeah a really large one, but you are more likely to be surrounded by 70s green shag carpet on the walls vs a ultra modern decor.

Why would you point a camera looking at the sky anyway?

Well. I am not convinced you have watched the new evidence presented in The New Pearl Harbor. It synchronized both cameras sufficiently you can match the smoke plume frame by frame. This shows the frames are synchronized enough to be superimposed. One video shows an object that could be the aircraft but on the other video, on the same frame, there's nothing but a trail of smoke behind what would be the aircraft of the first video.

You should watch it again, I think

Nope. He makes a lot of assumptions in that video. Assumptions I don't agree with. You don't know that is a smoke trail. Shit moving at 500mph could look like anything to those cameras.

but as the great LeVar Burton says, "You don't have to take my word for it..."

9/11 pentagon witness compliation

spoilers:

• about 89 The amount of eye witnesses I gathered who stated they saw an object crash into the Pentagon. The vast majority of the still available ones.

• at least 45 The amount of eye witnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it with words like: 'airliner', 'big', 'silver', 'roaring', etc.

• at least 23 The amount of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American Airlines jet. In all cases a large jet.

• at least 22 The amount of witnesses who reported the noise of the plane was very loud to deafening.

• at least 17 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the highways.

• at least 12 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw and heard the plane increase its throttle at the last seconds.

• at least 11 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a C-130H flying 30 seconds behind a jetliner.

• at least 5 The amount of eye witnesses who specifically stated they saw the plane had its gear up.

• at least 2 The amount of eye witnesses who stated that they saw a small corporate jet, without doing any creative interpretating [sic] of the witness accounts.

• at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a missile. What the person thought he heard isn't relevant!

• at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a military jet fighter at the time of the crash.

• at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a Global Hawk at the time of the crash.

Thanks you, I guess. You show me eye witnesses as evidence at the Pentagon. I show you the eye witnesses as evidence of explosions at WTC. The later is on tapes. The former isn't.

It's expected of me to accept the former as fact, and reject the later as "unreliable"?

Sounds of explosions means nothing to me. Sorry. There are way to many variables. I can give you an example directly involving the collapse of World Trade Center 2.

This video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE7fWV2qUVU[1]

Clearly the reporter sees no bombs, hears no bombs, as we can see the video and hear exactly what he hears. Yet he says "A huge explosion".

Now he clearly says a "a huge explosion" as the tower collapses, yet there is absolutely no evidence of actually seeing one or hearing a bomb or an actual explosion for that matter. He heard a loud noise, and he heard it as an explosion. But we can replay it a million times and see and hear that there was no explosion.

But when you pull the quote out without the exact context, eg. "a reporter saw/heard a huge explosion", it sounds more sinister than it is.

So reports of explosions are always dubious.

whoop whoop

But chemtrails are asinine...

I know haha I agree with you there. All I'm saying is that we have a lot of evidence against the official 9/11 story verified by many different people. Coming into a thread just to refute evidence without submitting any evidence just pisses me off. The post I replied to is not evidence and if it was it would be circumstantial at best

Lies won't spread themselves.

What is the lie here

I believe there are people taking advantage of conspiracy minded folks. There is your real conspiracy.

How so ?

Alex Jones sells you books, seed vaults, gold, preparedness kits.

What incentive does he have to tell the truth? His entire business is keeping you listening to charge more for advertising.

Richard Gage pays himself 80k a year from A&ETruth.

That's not a conspiracy it's someone taking advantage of the free market demand. Also you didn't answer my original question

What was your original question? Forgive me, as I am in 10 different discussions at once.

Why be in this thread refuting our ideas? What do you personally get out of it

Not serious answer.

I'm paid by the Zionist Illuminati overlord reptilians from the planet Zogon.

Serious answer?

It affected me, not directly. I like to learn about it. It helps me understand why it happened. It became how I dealt with it. The more I learned and understood, it helped with the "why".

Image

Title: Duty Calls

Title-text: What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!

Comic Explanation

Stats: This comic has been referenced 289 time(s), representing 2.37% of referenced xkcds.

^{Questions/Problems | Website | StopReplying}

The OP doesn't prove anything. Between 8:37 and 10:00 there was still no response by NORAD. The video goes into detail why.

So do you believe that if there was a hijacking today, someone would be able to fly around in that plane for over 1.5 hours without NORAD being able to respond?

The reality, is that under normal conditions, there would be a fighter jet on your ass in under 10 minutes.

How are they supposed to know flight 77 is hijacked before they are told?

Can't intercept something if you don't know there is a problem.

Personally, I don't believe we can compare anything back then to "today" in which innocent US citizens are detained and cavity searched in airports.

That being said, my critique of the OP was the use of the word "irrefutable" more than anything else. Taking the kinds of videos in the OP as "fact" is just as bad as claiming the official reports are "facts".

Point taken. There are more than a few one sided arguments in that documentary that are very much refutable, or that could have any number of alternate explanations. But the questions it raises are all excellent ones, and ones that the "official story" of 9/11 does not even come close to addressing.

Exactly! These kinds of videos should be meant to raise questions, not be twisted to fit one's own personal bias.

An interesting fact I never knew is that NORAD had scrambled jets to intercept an off course plane over the continental US exactly once in the decade or so prior to 9/11. That plane belonged to golfer Payne Stewart, and it took NORAD an hour and 19 minutes before jets got to it.

Yeah the whole process back before the Alert/Scramble system got streamlined was ridiculous.

The call would come down to scramble. And youd wait for a wheels up time, and then have to get there. When theres only so many bases with alert capabilities it can take a while.

Coincidentally I was just reading about the scramble situation a few days ago.

Apparently there was an entire chain of command from the time ATC noticed a plane off course until NORAD was even notified, and then NORAD had their own chain of command to go through before the scramble order could be given. The order had to go through something like 8 or 10 different people before a pilot would get the order.

Yup the old method (pre2005) would be like a 25person chain before the pilots in alert/scramble got the order to fire up the engines

Hijacking this - anyone else notice has this post has more comments than anything in recent /r/conspiracy history? The majority of them skeptical of OP?

A post which gets this many upvotes will attract a concerted and organised army of shills in the comments. These people also control multiple sockpuppet accounts to upvote their comments and push real contributions down the thread.

The general(Powell) who launched the fighters even skipped some of that. He gave the order to launch before he had permission. He said he would get it on the way.

That's not what I read.

Intercepting Payne Stewart's Leer-Jet took 35 minutes. At 9:33 am (EDT) the air traffic controller attempted unsuccessfully to contact Payne Stewart's Lear jet. "Pentagon officials said the military began its pursuit of the ghostly civilian aircraft at 10:08 am." In total, 10 military jets and one refueling tanker were sent up to escort Stewart's jet to crash in a sparsely populated area of the country. In the last 30 years there have been 682 hijackings in the US which have been responded to in accordance with appropriate FAA procedures. In the calendar year prior to 9/11, fighter aircraft were successfully scrambled on 56 occasions in response to such emergencies within minutes.

http://www.amazon.com/The-War-Truth-Disinformation-Terrorism/dp/1566565960

From the NTSB accident report:

At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA. About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet, the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response

So, it took from 9:33am Eastern time to 9:52 Central time to get to Stewarts plane, or roughly an hour and 19 minutes.

Great work with this. Anything that is labeled as "irrefutable" is immediately discredited in my book. If you aren't open to to rebuttal then there can't be discourse.

It's not his job the create a rebuttal, you need qualifications, data and experience to create a proper rebuttal to such an extensive video. The best most people can do is pick holes in things so someone else can come along and explain them. If there are holes it's be definition not irrefutable.

If that where true there would be no discussion on here at all.

I don't agree with many political stances, doesn't mean I have a replacement. Doesn't mean I should have a replacement.

You cannot do that without answering questions though. You need people to try and pull apart your argument otherwise you have not proved it's water tight.

Exactly. It's not "until you have a better conspiracy theory, the govt issued one still stands." No, the questions raIsed prove definitely the official narrative is bogus. More and more people are seeing through the fog of lies.

As compelling as your post is (and I'm not being sarcastic), I just don't have time to go through it right now.

My point is simply that offering an argument and calling it "irrefutable" damages your credibility. It gives the appearance of being dogmatic rather than open to reason. It's not exactly conducive to a discussion.

What is the point of research if you are arguing with someone who says they are irrefutable? My point is not about the content of your post, but the way in which you presented it.

You're just ... missing the point of what I'm saying.

I think you're doing the sane. By stating that it is "irrefutable" he's trying to encourage others to do their own research on the matter.

That's what I got from it, anyway.

[deleted]

[deleted]

LOL!

You. I like you.

From the book from the German researcher and alternative journalist Gerhard Wisniewski about 9/11 which I read about 2 years ago I remember that he researched a few very important things concerning the interceptors.

He proved that the interception of commercial planes in america was a pretty common thing and that it happens regularly and quite automatically. There was also no need for a hijacking to have taken place to send up some jets. Interceptors were send out immediately as soon as a plane changed its course by more than 15 degrees and if there was no radio contact with the plane. Usually there was no danger and just a mistake by the pilot. I also remember that the book stated it took them only a few minutes to reach their targets. And this was the situation before 9/11. He backed up his claims with interviews with NORAD and other people working in this field.

Sadly I don't have the book here right now, so I can't provide you with good sources. But I will try to get my hands on it.

Similar read.

Intercepting Payne Stewart's Leer-Jet took 35 minutes. At 9:33 am (EDT) the air traffic controller attempted unsuccessfully to contact Payne Stewart's Lear jet. "Pentagon officials said the military began its pursuit of the ghostly civilian aircraft at 10:08 am." In total, 10 military jets and one refueling tanker were sent up to escort Stewart's jet to crash in a sparsely populated area of the country. In the last 30 years there have been 682 hijackings in the US which have been responded to in accordance with appropriate FAA procedures. In the calendar year prior to 9/11, fighter aircraft were successfully scrambled on 56 occasions in response to such emergencies within minutes.
http://www.amazon.com/The-War-Truth-Disinformation-Terrorism/dp/1566565960

Actually, it was 9:33 EDT when the pilot didn't respond to communication attempts, and jets were launched to intercept it at 9:52 CDT which is a difference of over an hour, due to the time zone difference.

[deleted]

You have clearly no idea what you are talking about. He was accused to be antisemitic by the usual suspects, but he actually filed a lawsuit and won. They had to take back their accusations because they were simply untrue. I don't want to say that there are no antisemitic self claimed truthers, sadly a lot of them are. But Wisniewski is definitely not one of them. It is just pretty common to accuse everybody of antisemitism if they are not comfortable for the establishment. This happens a lot in Germany.

Edit here is the excerpt from German wikipedia: tdlr: Both times he was accused of antisemitism the ones accusing him had to take everything back and pay compensation.

Am 27. Februar 2009 wurde die Technische Universität Berlin vom Kammergericht Berlin wegen schwerwiegender Ehrverletzung zu einem Schmerzensgeld in Höhe von 5.000 Euro an Wisnewski verurteilt, weil sie ihn in einer Ausstellung in die Nähe zu antisemitischen Verschwörungstheorien gestellt hatte.[11] Am 9. September 2009 warf der österreichische Militärexperte Gerald Karner Wisnewski in der Sendung Club 2 vor, „antisemitische Verschwörungstheorien“ zu verbreiten. „Diese Verschwörungstheorien […] haben sehr oft einen ganz banalen, anti-amerikanischen, anti-israelischen, anti-jüdischen, sozusagen auch anti-semitischen Charakter“, behauptete Karner und fügte hinzu: „Das steht in Ihren Büchern, Herr Wisnewski.“ Ferner behauptete Karner, in Büchern von Wisnewski stehe, dass bei 9/11 „nur eine Person mosaischen Bekenntnisses“ ums Leben gekommen sei. Diese Falschbehauptungen wurden Karner vom Landgericht München unter Androhung von 250.000 Euro Ordnungsgeld, oder ersatzweise Ordnungshaft, untersagt.[12] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Wisnewski

Okay. So he won two cases against people calling him anti semitic.. Great for him.

Otherwise he seems to be a pretty reasonable guy as well: "Unter anderem stellt er in 2010 – Das andere Jahrbuch die Frage „Wie kam es wirklich zum Erdbeben von L’Aquila?“[13], die er damit beantwortet, dass das CERN wahrscheinlich Neutrinostrahlen gen L’Aquila geschossen habe."

An earthquake caused by CERN sending neutrinos.. sure. And the Titanic? Never hit an Iceberg.

You really chose the right guy to bring up.

Steve jobs had a fruitarian diet and chose holistic medicine to treat his cancer.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was a surgeon and gave the world Sherlock Holmes... He also investigated 2 closed cases and presented evidence that set two innocent men free. He also believed fairies existed...

Brilliant people believing ridiculous things doesn't mean they are not credible.

I'm not suggesting this guy is brilliant as I have no idea who he is, but I would like to point out the fallacious nature of your, "You really chose the right guy to bring up.", argument.

There have been so many instances of brilliant people believing ridiculous things that, for you to even hint that someone has no credibility because they believe a few ridiculous things, is laughable.

You're right overall. It's easy to use the reasoning I did in a fallacious way. But at some point if somebody believes enough nonsense is legitimate to call him a crank and dismiss his opinion. Of course it's subjective where this point is (This guy reached my personal point). One more thing. Of course people can believe stupid things in one field and be brilliant in another. But if a m.d. tells me that germs don't exist, just as a random example, I would not choose him to treat me.

Your bullshit has to at least be somewhat plausible. You've derailed, and you just keep going.

What?

Oh and the advace warning stuff is all 20/20 hindsight too.

Bullshit. The Phoenix Memo lists the names and addresses of the hijackers and it was given to Congress 6 months before 911. Knowing now the capabilities of the NSA, they had to have known. If only there was someone who worked at the NSA during 911 that had advance knowledge of 911 and spoke out....

Oh wait. There is. Thomas Drake worked for the NSA during 911 and TESTIFIED to the 911 Commission that they knew 911 was coming. His story here: http://youtu.be/zLdHw2ZWrjc?t=44m40s

There were at least three different departments who had reported on the hijackers for well over a year. Yet no one did anything? Multiple reports from multiple agencies that were all ignored.

Whenever I ask about this, the "answer" is always "well, they were incompetent", or something similar. Competent enough to find, follow and report on the hijackers, but too incompetent to follow up? That's what we are supposed to believe?

I find it next to impossible to believe all of those agencies were simultaneously incompetent, while the White House had intel reporting a planned strike, and no one thought to follow up.

Please continue...

There are quite a few questions to be answered...

Yeah, answering one question doesn't really do anything for me. Especially when it's the weakest evidence of a conspiracy. I never once thought that jets not being deployed on time was suspicious or hinted at a conspiracy. There is a whole lot more than that one question.

I'm not buying this. They trained for this exact scenario one year prior. There's no way they didn't know where these planes were on radio or had time to intercept the alleged planes either in NY or in Washington D.C.

From the wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks)

An erroneous FAA report of a hijacked plane heading towards Washington ("phantom Flight 11") prompted the scrambling of three more fighters from the 1st Fighter Wing at Langley Air Force Base, which due to "poor communications", ended up flying eastward, out to sea, instead of heading toward Washington, significantly delaying their arrival on the scene.

Do not forget that the US military is supposedly one of the world's strongest and they let three planes hit buildings in two cities without an interceptor anywhere in the sky? Get outta here.

For someone on /r/conspiracy you have a lot of faith in the efficiency of the US Government

Well, in the military at least in an event that they trained for. I can see the first plane hitting, but I just can't buy that nobody thought to intercept the second plane heading for new york!

There's so much bureaucracy and process they have to go through for every little bullshit thing in the military. I fully believe that it would take > an hour to scramble a jet to an arbitrary location in the US.

I guess that's not so hard to believe, but you would think there would be some degree of readiness if they had trained specifically for that exact scenario

A posted above mentioned that they reformed the process in 2005, I don't have a source or info but if that is accurate in any way it is entirely possible that someone raised the issue through said bureaucracy and made some changes (eventually).

Ha. Remember that guy that flew too close to the White House?

Intercepting Payne Stewart's Leer-Jet took 35 minutes. At 9:33 am (EDT) the air traffic controller attempted unsuccessfully to contact Payne Stewart's Lear jet. "Pentagon officials said the military began its pursuit of the ghostly civilian aircraft at 10:08 am." In total, 10 military jets and one refueling tanker were sent up to escort Stewart's jet to crash in a sparsely populated area of the country. In the last 30 years there have been 682 hijackings in the US which have been responded to in accordance with appropriate FAA procedures. In the calendar year prior to 9/11, fighter aircraft were successfully scrambled on 56 occasions in response to such emergencies within minutes.
http://www.amazon.com/The-War-Truth-Disinformation-Terrorism/dp/1566565960

It was actually closer to an hour and a half. The last communication was recorded in EASTERN time, while the time of interception was listed in CENTRAL time.

Ur saying that with no knowledge of actual procedures and precedent

How do you know that? Because it's completely wrong.

I'm on /r/conspiracy and I am dumbfounded. Try fucking with the US Military buddy, you'd get your ass handed to you almost instantly. That doesn't mean they are respectable or just, it means they are a fucking badass military organization. I agree with MusicMagi, there is no conceivable reason our fighters weren't up in the air within 10 minutes.

Yeah, who would ever expect the country that spends more on defense than every other country by a long shot to actually be able to defend themselves?!

Wait, so you're using the example of the FAA screwing up and telling LAFBase that there was a possible hijacked plane "out to sea" as evidence of... not having an interceptor in the sky?

They were in the sky, just nowhere near where they should've been.

Exactly. So how do you come to the conclusion that there is "no way they didn't know where these planes were on radio or had time to intercept" while presenting the fact that they were sent to the wrong destination by the FAA?

Edit: since I'm getting downvoted without discussion, I'll point out that the video itself presents the evidence that the WH already had the capability to fire on the pentagon airliner, freeing any interceptors to investigate other potentially hijacked airliners in the vicinity (which, again, the FAA told LAFB to investigate one over the water).

An erroneous FAA report of a hijacked plane heading towards Washington ("phantom Flight 11") prompted the scrambling of three more fighters from the 1st Fighter Wing at Langley Air Force Base, which due to "poor communications", ended up flying eastward, out to sea, instead of heading toward Washington, significantly delaying their arrival on the scene.

Yep that is correct. It wasn't intentional, you can hear (as in actual audio) it being discussed in the timeline I linked above.

Hanlon's razor

Oh and the advace warning stuff is all 20/20 hindsight too. The president gets all kinds of intelligence on this country and that rebel looking to do this act here

You need to do some more reading on the leaks by Sibel Edmunds. There absolutely was corruption going on in the translation department which led to a lot of leads being buried.

There doesn't have to be. There is a lot of noise in the system. That is why the Pentagon is the largest office building in the world. They analyze all that data. The president gets a condensed version of that on a daily basis. There is always some threat from somewhere. He can't act on all of them. Prioritize.

He can't act on all of them.

Apparently he can't act on any of them.

There have been more than one whistleblower saying there was direct knowledge of credible threats and that they met resistance with every avenue they attempted to take.

There were multiple reports from multiple agencies regarding the 9/11 terrorists. All were ignored? For well over a year? Including after the President received intel of an imminent attack being planned?

It seems convenient to just brush it aside with "there is always some threat", when multiple agencies just happened to ignore this threat.

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

• [/r/conspiratardness] 'Tards finally succumb to financing disinformation. Someone's mom will have a surprise on her credit card statement. The desperation is bittersweet.

• [/r/conspiratardness] 'Tards finally succumb to financing disinformation. Someone's mom will have a surprise on her credit card statement. The desperation is bittersweet.

^{I am a bot. Comments? Complaints? Send them to my inbox!}

Explain WTC7

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

• [/r/SubredditDrama] 500-comment /r/conspiracy thread on 9/11 spawns your usual WTC7 shtick. Accusations of JIDF involvement, /r/conspiratard brigading, and the like.

^{I am a bot. Comments? Complaints? Send them to my inbox!}

Must. Vote. Brigade. The 9/11 threads!!!1!

Thanks for the update, makes a lot more sense why Dimension has the top comment.

[deleted]

There's plenty of sensible comments in here. You are just calling his comment sensible because you don't believe that the official story is wrong, so the person you agree with is sensible. He didn't post any links for anything except the timing, which isn't really controversial and the points he made are explicitly addressed in the doc.

These "government truthers" can't ever argue facts. They are entirely incapable of debating fact and evidence.

Explain WTC7

Explain why the hell anyone would rig a demolition and bring down WTC7 amidst the scrutiny and photography of 9/11, when it would have been demolished three days later to zero fanfare along with the similarly damaged WTC 4, 5, and 6.

To get rid of evidence for massive financial scandals (see Enron, Worldcomm) and to erase all paper trails for the $2.3 Trillion lost by the pentagon in the years prior to 9/11. That's why I-HATE-REDDITORS, that's why!!!!

What's there to explain?

It collapsed primarily due to fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnYBX6QT0R4

Fire caused the building to collapse symmetrical into it's own footprint?? Must of been one hell of a flammable carpet.

Curious to think that with such raging infernos going on that a plastic/paper passport belonging to one of the hijackers is found quietly nestled and unscathed in the debris.

Passport of Satam al Suqami

Except for the fact that building seven didn't collapse symmetrically, nor did it fall into its own footprint.

You're really quite....defiant...aren't you ;)?

no, Im a truth patriot!

Those fucking passports "found" show how evident and dumb the whole thing is. It's clear that there's an intention to blame someone and start shipping the whole army somewhere.

No, it was found in the plane crash debris before the towers collapsed.

There are lots of things that survive plane crashes.

Who would be searching the plane crash debris at that point? A paper passport survives the crash but the black boxes can't be found?

Who was searching? It is the financial district in the most populated city in the US. People walking near the debris. A passport with a arab name would stick out to me. Search for pictures and you can see the debris for yourself.

Yeah, after a fucking plane had crashed into the WTC I'm sure people were just walking around sifting through debris. Give me a break.

No, but they had to walk through the street with all the debris if they wanted to leave right? The debris covered like 5 blocks. So how do all the people in the middle of that 5 blocks leave without seeing debris? It was everywhere.

You don't have to take my word for it. There are pictures.

Im not debating whether or not there was debris, of course there was. Im talking about the fact that a paper passport supposedly survived the plane crash and was recovered despite no one actively searching for it, while the black boxes were not recovered. A point that I brought up in my original reply that you ignored.

You wouldn't notice a distinctive blue passport on the ground as you walked by the debris?

People walking by debris NSFW/L gross blood

nothing bad as far as I can tell

Yes i know where it was found. My point is that if fiery debris was able to bring down building 7 why wasn't a paper passport destroyed upon impact if the fires were burning at such high temperatures.

What did it do, fly out of Suqami's coat pocket and then get carried out of an open window on the plane by a stray fart?

It looked like a tickertape parade down there that day. There were literally millions of papers and bits of papers floating around. Bits of the planes were found all over lower Manhattan, some large as one of the engines that landed a few streets over, but many more (including small pieces of body parts and clothing before the towers collapsed - personally witnessed, as I was in a building that was evacuated at about 9:30am near the WTC site) all over.

As well, how were the people able to walk out into the gash. A gash so hot, it melted metal?

People regularly get knocked out of their shoes in car accidents. I don't mean loose shoes, I mean like sneakers. Ask an EMT. They'll tell you. Now with a huge plane, all kinds of things can happen. All I can say is it did. It wasn't the only paper like object found either. There was a bill that was in the US mail bag in the belly of one of the planes that survived too. A wedding invitation from one of the passengers survived too.

Shame we didn't see such luck when it came to finding the black boxes.

terrorists in the front of the plane, black boxes in the rear. Probably in the building, which collapsed shortly after.

its obvious you didn't watch the movie, like all skeptics about this you are parroting.

The amount of fine detail searching that was done to the rubble was unprecedented. They found watches, coins, finger bones, bone fragments the size of fingernails .. but no black boxes that were by comparison fucking HUGE.

and before you say - they were buried. All the debris was gone over with a fine tooth comb out of deference to the dead, and then it was gone over even more closely a second time (conveyer belt and sifting)

The black boxes were found and removed ..we will never see them.

do you consider yourself a smart man? .. like intelligent not just common sense smart.

None so blind as those who will not see.

And your point? You know how strong black boxes are don't you?

I realize the post that started this chain got highly up voted. But you haven't really proved anything. You comment on one aspect that is not even the most significant of all the evidence compiled.

Here is Flight 77's looks like they ain't gettin' anything from that.

Here is Flight 93's they got the data from that

What is the most significant in your opinion?

Sources?

both from here:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html

In terms of your questions about the most significant, I won't go into your denial of WTC7. one of the things the doc pointed out, which I had done prior research into, is the fact about the confiscation of the Pentagon tapes. It goes against FOIA rules.

The ones they released in 2006? Please be specific on what tapes you mean.

Link to released tapes.

I'm taking about the 85 tapes the FBI confiscated from the Pentagon surveillance system.

The 85 tapes you refer to were not confiscated from the Pentagon surveillance system. The 85 tapes refers to the number of tapes cited by the FBI in the Maguire Declaration as being possibly responsive to an FOIA request . The tapes include a variety of video sources pertaining to the FBI's 9-11 investigation, including video of the WTC and video of investigations into locations linked to the suspected terrorists.

That FOIA request (which can be seen in the OP's video at 17:28), specifically requested video recordings that showed the impact of flight 77. The FBI reviewed the 85 possibly responsive tapes and concluded that only one of them (the security gate tape with two vantage points) showed the impact. They thus disclosed only that tape in their response to the FOIA.

There is nothing stopping anyone from submitting an FOIA for the other 85 tapes. The contents of those tapes was listed in the Maguire Declaration and they would be relatively easy to request. The reason you don't have them is because no one actually requested them.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/doubletreeaffadavit.pdf

more thorough overview that includes the attached video list: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/FBI_hides_84_Pentagon_videos

I just noticed someone in the background at about 00:27 say something about a "secondary explosion".

sounded dubbed on

Very well could be. The firefighter on camera does seem to be paying attention to someone off screen right as the background voice pipes in.

If it's not a fake, then this is one of many witnesses who mention secondary explosions on that tragic day.

And footage of survivors (civilian and firefighters) telling of the massive explosions in the lobby and underground long before the collapse.

And many people described the sound of falling bodies hitting the ground as explosive. Your point?

Lol no they don't, or at least no one is saying they sound like actual explosions. Come on man, keep trying.

They don't?

http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric_broadway_electrical_supplys/

“I decided to walk closer to the South Tower. I was about 100 ft from the South Tower looking up when the bodies started coming down. I counted 35. They were just piling up on the Marriott Marquis hotel. They were 10 to 15 thick piling up one after another. You could hear them hitting on the side streets. They were hitting cars, and there were lots of explosions.

“I have seen plenty of death in my life, and burned bodies and so forth, but this was incredible. As I was looking up, I saw a body coming down, hit a lamppost and explode like a paint ball. Its arms and legs got torn off and the head ripped off and bounced right by me.”

No, I don't think they do. Sure they are loud, and they do 'explode' on impact. They may even sound like an explosion when striking the right object...But real explosions, like the ones that eye witnesses heard and experienced that morning had concussive force, not only loud noise. These are firefighters and police officers saying they heard explosions, not only civilians, and not only in isolated cases.

What.

He literally described bodies hitting cars as explosions.

And you're trying to say he didn't?

You're taking the quotes way out of context. First quote says you could hear the corpses hitting the streets, he also said there were lots of explosions. He never said that the bodies falling made a explosion sound.

Second quote says the body exploded like a paintball. He was talking graphically. As far as I know paintball don't make much sound but sure does explode.

That's exactly why I posted the quotes. The word explosion does not equate to explosives.

I should also add that yes, he was referring to bodies hitting the ground as an explosive sound. And he's far from being the only one to describe bodies hitting the ground that way.

There is footage recorded from the lobby of one of the towers of extremely loud noises. When someone off camera asks what the noises are a fireman says "it's people jumping from the tower". So it isn't unreasonable that someone would describe that sound as an 'explosion'.

My point is the eyewitness use of the word 'explosion' isn't evidence of anything.

Or something similar to The McGurk Effect!

So basically someone saying the voice in the background says one thing effects your interpretation of it

fire caused it to disintegrate into pyroclastic clouds of dust in mid-air?

lol, how do you sleep at night?

Lol'd

Thank you I needed that

Never in history a steel structure building has collapsed because of a fire. If it were to do, physics dictate that the fall wouldn't be symmetrical and at free fall time. It's really simple.

Watch the video indexed right above, it's preattly clear.

physics dictate that the fall wouldn't be symmetrical and at free fall time. It's really simple.

That is where you are wrong. It isn't.

Never in history a steel structure building has collapsed because of a fire

300 firefighters killed in one day

4 planes crash in one day

110 story building collapse

110 story building collapse

4 hijacking in one day

I never seen those happen neither. till that day.

Hasn't happened doesn't mean it is impossible.

physics dictate that the fall wouldn't be symmetrical and at free fall time

No it doesn't. The fall wasn't symmetrical, first off; you can see quite clearly in the video that the east side penthouse and it's support collapsed long before the rest. Additionally, there were several points of the north face that were clearly visibly collapsing at different speeds.

Secondly, only the north face was every reported to have been at free fall, and only for a short period of time because it's support -the core of the building - had already collapsed behind it.

Finally, saying "it's never happened before" mean absolutely nothing. For every single thing that has ever happened, there was a first time for it. This is the first event of its kind in history; I would expect some unusual or even unique events given the circumstances.

It's called metal annealing point, you should actually talk to an ahem actual structural engineer sometime.

You should watch the video, they talk to many. None of them can explain all columns failing at the same time (impossible).

"all the columns"

Right.

Watch the fucking video, it's indexed comfortably above.

[deleted]

Flagged for a blatant JIDF shill.

[deleted]

He's not a shill. He's a troll from /r/conspiritard

I don't believe most of the conspiracies behind 9/11. The one that baffles my mind is the crash at the pentagon. I am no expert but I can't wrap my head around how a plane could leave that kind of damage. It seems like a square peg in a round hole problem. You however sound knowledgeable on the subject. What is the reasonable explanation for the appearance of the pentagon crash?

I wouldn't want to disappoint you...

http://imgur.com/a/ENhMl

People who have never seen the Pentagon are at an extreme disadvantage. It is a HUGE building. People don't give respect to scale till you see it in person. Same for WTC7 (it would have been the tallest building in 33 states)

check my history for eyewitness to pentagon

Thank you for the response. I obviously have not done enough research on the subject. I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question. And yes I have never seen the pentagon in person.

Bent light poles? Seems like a reach when you compare it to the heaps of evidence that point to a plane crash. They were able to positively identify the remains of everyone from that plane inside the building, including the five hijackers. They also found a burning plane inside the Pentagon. You are wrong.

How on earth could they find remains of everyone in that plane, even the hijackers? When something crashes into a stone wall and explodes in to a massive fireball it would be very unlikely you would find analyzable remains from everyone on board. Bodies would be torn apart, burnt beyond recognition, and otherwise destroyed. The fact they say they found remains from everyone, analyzed them and had definite proof of who the body parts belonged to, should be a red flag to you. It is just highly unlikely.

Also, how would they know how to identify the hijackers? Did we have their DNA? If so, why? Did we have their dental records? If so, why? These were foreign nationals (or so they say) and US databases rarely have foreign identification records. Unless, that is, they are on a watch list, but if these 'terrorists' were on a watch list, how did they get on the plane in the first place?

They did not find any burning plane in the pentagon, you are just lying on that part. An aluminum plane could not withstand an impact like that. And there would be sheared off wings on the lawn, if the fuselage did enter the building. We see no significant wreckage.

Also: How did an inexperienced pilot fly that plane so fast so low? That is an incredibly difficult maneuver. And why wasn't the plane shot down? This is the god damn pentagon we are talking about, not a Wal-Mart. There is security at the Pentagon beyond measure, things the public does not even know exists, and you expect us to believe no defensive measures were taken to stop this plane from striking the hub of all global US military operations? Get real, 'jory26', or should I say US government employee. Get, fucking, REAL.

They have the flight manifest, and an account of everybody in the Pentagon. Jet fuel doesn't burn nearly hot enough to disintegrate bodies, so it becomes a matter of experts matching up bodies to whatever records are available. This is what they did after the Titanic, and after Waco. They didn't find all the remains, but most of them. Somebody above me gives much a better analysis and explanation of why we were unable to defend from it. I don't know what sort of wreckage you expect to have rolled back out of the pentagon and be sitting on the lawn, but I'm sure the plane is all in there. This wasn't a bomb where pieces explode outward.

They were able to positively identify the remains of everyone from that plane inside the building, including the five hijackers. They also found a burning plane inside the Pentagon.

Ah another skeptic who hasn't watched the video that this very thread is about.

Not only are you wrong, but you don't even know why your wrong.

The targets hit were not a result of coincidence, it was very deliberate. Look for yourself

Also...
BBC debunks truther's theories on WTC 7:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZbMfTtHkYM
Youtube user rkowens debunks the rest:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCF6113F4E27F47DF

Are you going to pay all those people required to get 300 planes in the air to stand on alert? 24/7 for approximately 1 hijacking ever 10 years in US airspace?

Isn't that like, the whole point of the military? Are you suggesting military personnel earn an hourly wage?

[deleted]

...But EMTs are on alert 24/7.

But not all of them. There are more on alert in the evening then there are at 5 AM. It is a simple question of how much demand there is for EMTs. There are always some at a hospital ready to go at a moments notice and then there are always some who are at home ready to be called and sprung in to action if something big happened. (like an explosion, big fire, earthquake,etc)

The amount of people you need that are able to respond in 2 minutes and the amount of people you have that can respond within half an hour or an hour are different. These amounts are based on the necessity.

As such, the amount of jet fighters that can take off within 10 minutes and the amount of jet fighters that can take off within an hour is vastly different.

No their not, they have shifts.

One F16 requires a shitload of manpower, and paperwork.

Ammo, fuelers, maintenance, avionics, hydraulic, crew chief, pilot, backup pilot (rotate on call shifts). Then there is the scheduler, flight planner, weather observers. On average its a group of 20 people per aircraft.

Yes, the designated alert/scramble bases of which there are 6 of, keep four of those teams on duty 24hrs a day. Thats it. Four fighters ready to go at a moments notice. The rest of the base operates like a normal city.

and make about 10 bucks an hour. Wanna know how much an F-16 costs?

Wanna know how much an F-16 costs?

Wanna know how much the US spends on 'defense' each year?

yeah, and it would be a lot more of they had that much on alert :)

We spend over half a trillion dollars a year for the military, not including war costs and nuclear activity.

Is it less than that?

If you increase to include 300 alert planes for the United State you are increasing it. Or you are going to have to cut a lot for something that rarely ever happens.

On 9/11 scale the last incident was Pearl Harbor (heh heh). So 300 planes from 1941 to 2001?

Not practical, conceivable, or realistic in the least.

I'm still awaiting your answers about why tower 7 fell, and why it fell in the manner it did. After all:

I'd be happy to explain the skeptical position and answer the questions they provide. If you want to talk about anything specific, please share with me what section you think has the best evidence for a conspiracy. I'll give you the parts they leave out to intentionally mislead you.

You should have asked him earlier than :)

No. The military, like police, like emts, like any response team in the world reacts to situations.

And like many other teams, the military rotates people in and out of "immediate response teams". That means they are on base, dressed, and ready to go within minutes.

I'm surprised to see something that offers contradictory evidence being up voted in this sub. Seems everytime counter-evidence is presented the person is just called a shill and downvoted

Not quite. We all search strongly for evidence and proof. Those who are unwilling to change their opinion when evidence is provided is extremely foolish. All we seek is evidece.

The only problem with your evidence is that it could have been produced at any point between 9/11 and the time it was released to the public. It is literally just audio, there is no way to verify that it was not staged evidence. And given the past and present behavior of our government I wouldn't think it's impossible that they would do that, and that it actually would explain a lot of the recent activities of government which have reeked of ulterior motivation.

You know that George W Bush specifically requested the August 6,2001 PDB entitled "bin laden determined to strike inside US", right?

Thats some pretty remarkable foresight for the president. He requested info on the prime suspect on 9/11, about a month before 9/11?

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

And Clinton knew Bin Laden wanted to attack the US too. That's why Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden with cruise missiles.

As your link makes clear, the problem was that no one knew how he planned to attack the US or when. The warning in the memo you cite "did not warn the President of a specific new threat but 'contained historical information based on old reporting.'" Moreover, if you read the 9-11 commission report, it is pretty clear that bin Laden's involvement in planning the attacks was minimal. KSM was the true mastermind of the 9-11 attacks.

So all that bullshit in the middle about the military and Cheney means nothing.

Wrong.

Even if we accept the claim that the military has only 4 alert-ready fighters on the east coast pre-9/11 at all times regardless of wargames (source needed), the issue was that Cheney refused to give a surface-to-air missle shootdown order from the White House bunker for a plane that was clearly hijaaked, headed to the nation's capital, with no fighters to intercept it.

Explain that.

Oh and the advace warning stuff is all 20/20 hindsight too.

That would be a convenient argument if we didn't also know that many of the advance warnings were deliberately thwarted pre-9/11.

Look up Able Danger, Coleen Rowley, John O'Neil, the list goes on.

LOL your only source is the NY times

you are making the assumption those times are accurate...coming from the new york times...

In the last 30 years there have been 682 hijackings in the US which have been responded to in accordance with appropriate FAA procedures. In the calendar year prior to 9/11, fighter aircraft were successfully scrambled on 56 occasions in response to such emergencies within minutes.

http://www.amazon.com/The-War-Truth-Disinformation-Terrorism/dp/1566565960

I'd be happy to explain the skeptical position and answer the questions they provide.

do so then .. some of them you will have to fabricate your own evidence for though.

By this logic, If the film is half true doesn't that alone warrant a new investigation?

Also, your rebuttal is weak at best. You speak ad nauseam about the real response times of Norad as if it's ascertainable fact and not complete conjecture. Not to mention that your taking it out of context completely reframes the argument to exclude the war games and air traffic confusion which were detailed in the film as reason for the complete failure of Norad.

You asked for a rebuttal in this little gish gallop of yours and when you get it, you decided to ignore the information presented and instead go after the person who replied.

This is pathetic. If you are so confident in your information, you should have no problem debating the issues.

"Complete conjecture?" Do you even know what the word "Conjecture" means? Look at the link provided. It's all there.

I'll translate your comment for posterity: " I'm here to troll anyone who does not believe the official story. I will enter into a circular argument whereby the official story is correct because it is supported by official sources. I have a short temper and can't be reasoned with. I'm an asshole."

More ad hominem. Imagine my surprise!

Why cant you discuss the issues?

/u/_Dimension found a flaw with your "Cheney knew all along" hypothesis and you refuse to acknowledge it other than to say its "conjecture."

I wonder how difficult it would be to find flaws with any of the other many points you galloped all over the page up there? Makes me wonder just how accurate your information really is.

Now I see where conjecture comes into play with this.

If by discuss the issues you mean debate your version of the truth against what actually happened, then yeah, im not interested. I suppose you can just explain away the sworn testimony of Norman Mineta as " a misunderstanding."

Of course, you would rather sit around and agree on the things you take for granted instead of discussing other possibilities. "Occam's razor be damned. This is what I believe in and you can't convince me otherwise because I choose to not listen to anyone that disagrees with me! Neener Neener!!"

Which testimony are you talking about? Citing the testimony in question might make for a more credible answer.

You've illustrated precisely my point. You come here to debate and are unaware of evidence that is central to the theory. You're out of your league. Get informed or get out.

Still not addressing what he had to say. Typical.

What exactly have you said? Apart from criticizing my dismissal of the aforementioned rebuttal. You've said nothing of merit and have succeded in saying the obvious things I said you would say. You're uninformed and trolling. I'm through here.

I'm through here.

How convenient for you.

gish gallop gish gallop gish gallop gish gallop gish gallop gish gallop gish gallop gish gallop gish gallop gish gallop gish gallop gish gallop gish gallop gish gallop gish gallop gish gallop gish gallop gish gallop gish gallop

I'd like to see some links or something in here. I don't think you're wrong, i just want to see some proof from you as well.

Some other comments...

There was 4 planes on alert for that section of the United States and it had been that way since 1997 when Clinton started closing bases.

Aren't those being scrambled from Virginia? It would seem to me that it would take less than ten minutes to get to NYC or Washington from where they were stationed once they were already up in the air, but admittedly, I don't know.

I can understand how that they couldn't get there in time for the north and south towers, but the flight that went into the Pentagon was an hour after NORAD was already on alert. Why weren't they able to intercept it, and, if the movie is correct, how were the hijackers able to get into restricted airspace?

The reason they got 300 in the air so fast is because every military person saw what was happening and ran the hell there to every military base to get 300 planes in the air. Which is pretty damn remarkable.

Not really, they didn't prevent anything.

Are you going to pay all those people required to get 300 planes in the air to stand on alert? 24/7 for approximately 1 hijacking ever 10 years in US airspace?

We already do, and that's precisely what their job is. Maybe not be on alert, but to be able to get jets in the air within ten minutes or so. It's the same principle with cops and firefighters, they're on call 24/7 and are also paid through taxes. The military gets hundreds of billions every year to do exactly that (among other things like nation building and overthrowing dictators).

Hopefully you can provide some more data to back up your claims, I'd be interested to read more.

Anything specific you'd like a source on?

Well, first, if you could answer

I can understand how that they couldn't get there in time for the north and south towers, but the flight that went into the Pentagon was an hour after NORAD was already on alert. Why weren't they able to intercept it, and, if the movie is correct, how were the hijackers able to get into restricted airspace?

Especially when there were already 2 other planes that day that had flown into buildings. Surely, shortly after Flight 11 flew into the north tower, NORAD should have been ready to deploy immediately, no? They had 50 minutes from that time to the time that Flight 77 hit the pentagon.

The wargames going on at the time was a Russian bomber over Alaska. -The month long- training exercise could include hijackings.

I'd like to read about that. Does that mean that most of the planes were in Alaska so were not able to effectively respond? Also...

Today, there is a total of ~18 alert fighters for the entire United States and they fixed the system of controllers reporting to NORAD. The approximate time to respond -TODAY- is 10 minutes.

Can you provide some information about this? I'd like to read this as well. Thanks in advance.

Especially when there were already 2 other planes that day that had flown into buildings. Surely, shortly after Flight 11 flew into the north tower, NORAD should have been ready to deploy immediately, no? They had 50 minutes from that time to the time that Flight 77 hit the pentagon.

Tru dat. But in the 4000+ planes in the air, which one is the hijacked one? NORAD had to be told what was hijacked. And they were moving 500+mph.

See this gentleman who claims he is an air traffic controller on why the delay.

You know 77 is hijacked. The problem nobody at the time knew. If they had all that information available, they could have stopped them for they got on the plane. You gotta put yourself in their shoes.

You gotta remember nothing like this has happened before, even after the first plane hit, it was more of: Wow, dumb pilot.

Second plane hit: OH FUCK. That isn't a conscience. Holy shit this the worst possible thing ever.

Third plane hit: OH CRAP That isn't NY. They could be anywhere. That is when they started closing the airspace of the whole country and tall buildings/government buildings around the country went on alert.

First it was mistake. Then it was a NY event. And then it was a national event. In that order.

The problem nobody at the time knew.

Yes, they did. They were well aware.

"According to the Secret Service, the plane that hit the Pentagon was tracked for at least 30 minutes before it hit the pentagon."

Yeah, if they somehow knew from Flight 11 that there were 4 planes hijacked, they could have intercepted them.

They did know, after Flight 11, that there were other planes that were also hijacked. This is also addressed in the film.

You are not really addressing the issues that have already been presented. There is ample proof that they were aware of the planes, they just did not get there in time, which seems strange since they could have easily gotten there in time, especially when they knew that the plane was in restricted airspace over DC.

So all that bullshit in the middle about the military and Cheney means nothing.

No it isn't, it's actually very pertinent evidence that people were aware that there was a plane coming in to the Pentagon. Norman Mineta's testimony under oath in a congressional hearing is proof of this.

Secret Service heard about the phantom flight 11, the ones the planes were sent our to intercept? You know from New York North East of Washington.

So they were expecting a plane from the wrong direction.

You know that whole 50 miles out thing? 40? 30? That wasn't flight 77, that was the phantom plane. How they knew something that didn't exist was so many miles out? Math, they had the speeed of Flight 11 and they could work out the time till it got to Washington. They never had radar on it. Tracking transceiverless plane can still be done because math kicks ass.

Norman Mineta was wrong. Just like the skeptics say...

Too long to post here:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Norman_Mineta

I know you won't believe it or not care to read it because it is a lot.

Tru dat. But in the 4000+ planes in the air, which one is the hijacked one? NORAD had to be told what was hijacked. And they were moving 500+mph.

If you watched the video you'd see that the guy already addressed that point and proved it to be a fallacy.

EDIT: Many here are commenting and don't even watch the video, it is a complete waste of time both for yourselves and for us. If you want to debunk then watch the video first and comment after, if not then please stop wasting our time.

Well it is a good thing we have when NORAD was informed of the hijackings, otherwise that might matter.

They can't intercept something if they don't know about it.

I just told you that your argument has already been covered in the video.

And I told you why it was wrong. Cover it all you like.

Flights were not intercepted because nobody was psyhic enough to know that 4 planes were hijacked.

So rather than 1 hour and 40 minutes of time to intercept Flight 77. You had until the time NORAD was informed of the hijacking to the crash.

If we somehow invented something to read minds, we could have known that Flight 77 was hijacked and flew directly there.

The guy provides recordings and testimonies proving you wrong, yet you tell me that it's still wrong. Alright, I see that this conversation will not change.

Were you old enough at the time to remember events unfold? I was. It happened almost exactly how this guy described. No one even knew we were under attack until the second plane hit. Afterwards, there were reports of many supposed hijackings as the skies were closed and planes were attempting to land. The military was "intercepting" a plane which had already crashed into the WTC at one point.

There was a mass of confusion that day and to use the military's inability to intercept the planes before they reached their target as evidence of some conspiracy is misguided, to say the least.

Were you old enough at the time to remember events unfold?

Yes, I was an adult by 2001. I remember everything that day.

No one even knew we were under attack until the second plane hit. Afterwards, there were reports of many supposed hijackings as the skies were closed and planes were attempting to land. The military was "intercepting" a plane which had already crashed into the WTC at one point.

There was a mass of confusion that day and to use the military's inability to intercept the planes before they reached their target as evidence of some conspiracy is misguided, to say the least.

Again, the video already covered the "military ignorance" part. If you guys would bother to watch it we wouldn't be here wasting each other's time. Or don't watch it if you don't want to but then please refrain from commenting about something that you do not know of.

You keep appealing to this video. I am asking you to appeal to what you know (from having lived the day). Do you need a video to tell you what the experience was like on that day? To say it was chaos is an understatement.

I think he is solely interesting in the arguments presented in this video and this video only. That's what this thread is for. He's not going to divert down to generic 9/11 discussions featuring the same damn tired arguments, and rebuttals, we've all heard since 2001.

Please, be discussing The New Pearl Harbor and it's materials.

So, we can debate and argue in this thread as long as the video is the only source we can use? Guess that's one way of settling an argument.

You keep appealing to this video. I am asking you to appeal to what you know (from having lived the day). Do you need a video to tell you what the experience was like on that day? To say it was chaos is an understatement.

You are trying to derail this conversation by changing subjects towards irrelevant personal nonsense feelings of that day that have absolutely nothing worth as justification to what happened that day.

This thread is about the video and what it questions, not about how afraid you or me felt that day.

I am asking you to appeal to what you know (from having lived the day).

I remember that day, but what does my personal experience have to do about that day? I didn't even know what NORAD or the FAA was at the time. The evidence presented is much more relevant than 'how you remember that day'

Because, in retrospect, separated from the chaos, fear and confusion of the day, we can look back rationally at all the data presented to us in an easy to understand format, and know exactly what and when stuff should have happened. But, that is not the appropriate way to look at things. Something happened that morning unprecedented in the history of the world and it happened multiple times in multiple locations in the span of a few hours. Meanwhile, planes are being redirected (to land), and there were repeated reports of multiple hijackings, some of which the planes had already crashed, as well as reports of other things like car bombs. And, before this day, hijackers were people who took hostages and made demands and the air force was there to defend against external, not internal, threats.

That guy's recordings of what? NORAD was notified of flight 77 five minutes before it crashed into the Pentagon.

how about instead of pointing to the video how about you show some evidence for once?

I don't believe you.

wait, so gayunicorn6969 says that the evidence you seek is in the video you won't watch, and you don't believe him?

I did watch it. I disagree with his evidence. If he would like to do what I did, a real honest discussion, he can post exactly what he means rather than, "go watch the video".

I've been doing nothing but answer questions for 5 hours straight and that is the best he can do? "Go look at the video."

Whatever. Post what you mean, or I am not discussing it.

why do you disagree with the evidence presented in the video?

why should your video or link to a post from an anonymous redditor hold more weight than the video op posted?

I posted why. If he has a problem with what I posted, he can do the work and tell me why.

I did watch it.

joseph177 -2 points 3 hours ago (9|11)

Why don't you start by answering the questions posed in the video (requires you watch it).

  _ Dimension -7 points 3 hours ago (12|19)

Ain't Nobody Got Time for That!

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1xslls/911_the_new_pearl_harbor_irrefutable_proof_the/cfeek8h

 _______________________

Whatever. Post what you mean, or I am not discussing it.

The thread itself is the post of all that we mean. This is the reason why we ask people to watch it before talking about it because people will be talking about things that were already covered in the video.

I'm saying you can't prove me wrong because you are wrong.

Ain't nobody got time for that! References answering all 50 questions.

As you can see one question alone took me 5 hours to get this far. See that is how evidence works. You just don't throw a bunch of shit up against the wall and see what sticks.

I'm saying you can't prove me wrong because you are wrong.

Great comeback, reminds me of Ken Ham when trying to refute Bill Nye.

As you can see one question alone took me 5 hours to get this far. See that is how evidence works. You just don't throw a bunch of shit up against the wall and see what sticks.

See? This is why people should always watch before commenting and wasting time to themselves and to others. It's not that hard to understand.

See that is how evidence works

What evidence though, you haven't really said anything except "they couldn't get there in time" and "they didn't even know where he was" although there is proof that the places were being tracked and, for some reason, the jets from Langley were scrambled west over the Atlantic.

NORAD did not know about flight 77 until five minutes before it crashed into the pentagon.

Yes they did, they were scrambled over the ocean though.

deny deny deny

Besides the fact that there are 50 questions that the guy makes in the video and you didn't actually answered one, would you be willing to do a kind of Q&A with me? AnSq has been really great and patient with me , I hope you can do the same thing and we can develop an interesting discussion.

EDIT: The moment you see this kind of comment, that completely ignores the fact that the video already covered, is the top comment has only one explanation: vote brigading from our fellow r/tards

http://np.reddit.com/r/conspiratard/comments/1xu9pp/911_truthers_in_rconspiracy_have_figured_out_our/

How is asking 50 questions with no answers "irrefutable" proof of anything?

How is the official story believable when there's at least 50 direct questions that cannot be answered?

The proof is being taken out of context by us, sadly, the proof itself is that the investigation was not conducted correctly and should be done openly public, transparent and peer reviewed.

Are you implying that if the government did its investigation again, in a manner to your liking, they would somehow reach a different conclusion? This is, after all, the same government you allege killed thousands of its own civilians and covered it up.

I can see how it would go down. "Yeah, remember how before we said it was terrorists? Well, actually, through further investigation, we discovered we did in fact murder thousands of innocent civilians and go to war under false pretenses in which 1000s more civilians and soldiers died. Our bad...".

So, let's be honest, 911 truthers would denounce any investigation done or sponsored by the government regardless of the manner in which it was conducted.

Are you implying that if the government did its investigation again, in a manner to your liking, they would somehow reach a different conclusion? This is, after all, the same government you allege killed thousands of its own civilians and covered it up.

Yes because this time it would be peer reviewed, this time they wouldn't reach to the conclusions they would want to without hearing what the other experts had to say about it. Just like when the conspiracy theorists corrected numerous problems with the NIST report, including the free-fall statement.

So, let's be honest, 911 truthers would denounce any investigation done or sponsored by the government regardless of the manner in which it was conducted.

The reason why the government won't do it is because they know they will be caught with their pants down, same reason why NIST will not release their models data, same reason why FBI wont release the other 80 pentagon cctv videos that, according to them, "don't show anything".

This is me being honest.

why FBI wont release the other 80 pentagon cctv videos that....

bbbzzznnnttt.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/FBI_hides_84_Pentagon_videos

That is another easy one.

tl;dr

Office drone says they have 85 tapes that match the query of the FOIA request. Truthers misinterpret as 85 separate tapes of something hitting the Pentagon. When the office drone meant 85 tapes total related to 9/11. (Hanlon's razor again)

In my link you can find an itemized report of what are on those 85 tapes.

It's not even that they have 85 tapes that match the query of the FOIA request; it's that they had 85 tapes that potentially matched the query request. The query request was very narrow: only videos showing the impact of Flight 77 at the Pentagon were requested.

What the FBI did was review the 85 tapes that might potentially contain such footage and determine that only one video (the security gate system that contained two cameras) showed the impact. The FBI thus disclosed only one tape.

The conspiracy theorists simply wrote their FOIA request too narrowly to get the 85 tapes. And now no one can explain to me why they do not write a broader FOIA request since they have had years to review the list in the Maguire Declaration. Instead, they blame the FBI for giving them only what they requested.

So, if the government released a new, peer reviewed report, which reached essentially the same conclusions, you would no longer be a truther?

If it reached the same conclusions, yes, it would make it easier to believe in the official story, as long as I could verify the data that proves the claims and/or see any evidence that proves the claims, then yes, it would be far easier than to believe in a story that only demands us to take their word for it.

Is it something hard to understand?

But the official report that exists already was compiled over many months and included all the available evidence and included input from 1200 experts and witnesses. A majority of the experts in the world agree with most or all of the conclusions of the report (or at least don't actively question them). Only a small contingent of vocal truthers, most of whom have no first hand account of the attacks or expertise in the subject matter, hold out that the conclusions reached are false and none of them has, thus far, provided any hard evidence to prove their claims. So, why, based on this, should the government spend the time, manpower and money to produce what will surely be a very similar report based on the objections of a shrinking, but vocal, minority of fanatics?

The reason why the government won't do it is because they know they will be caught with their pants down, same reason why NIST will not release their models data, same reason why FBI wont release the other 80 pentagon cctv videos that, according to them, "don't show anything".

I thought that quote right there was enough for you to understand that the official story is completely flawed and has no reason at all that justifies not investigating the other possibility. In fact it has as much evidence of "terrorism" as it has of "conspiracy". Why do you feel the need to continue shoving words when I already explained pretty clearly to you why I don't buy the official story? Is this something that you can't control? Because I am pretty tired of repeating myself to you guys.

Except that they CAN be answered and one just was. And now that answer is being ignored instead of discussed.

Really I thought I did a good job with "Where are the interceptors?"

Part 1 section 1.

I wasn't asking that because if you'd watch the video you would know that he covered what you said. Please read my question again.

this has been debunked hundreds of times

[deleted]

Tru dat. You can turn em off and change codes on them.

They get lost in the noise of everything else. Primary only.

I would also expect air traffic controllers to be slightly distracted as it is human nature to see what happened in New York.

No proof there, but if my plane crashes into a building, I have one eye on my screen and one eye on the news. That is why nobody noticed 175 for so long.

Nobody noticed 175 on radar for so long? The video clearly refutes this, a 500mph radar blip with no transponder is a massive alarm and they noticed right away.

What about Susan linbauer?

Susan linbauer

" He noted that the severity of Lindauer's mental illness, which he described as a "lengthy delusional history", weakened the prosecution's case. In his decision he wrote, "Lindauer ... could not act successfully as an agent of the Iraqi government without in some way influencing normal people .... There is no indication that Lindauer ever came close to influencing anyone, or could have. The indictment charges only what it describes as an unsuccessful attempt to influence an unnamed government official, and the record shows that even lay people recognize that she is seriously disturbed."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/nyregion/09spy.html?pagewanted=print

If you want her to be your lord and savior, please, don't let me get in the way.

Thanks for the response. I was just curious because u wrote off the whole idea of Cheney being involved and them having prior knowledge of the attack when u said "they couldnt have responded in time so all that stuff about Cheney doesn't matter," and thought lindauer would be a a good way to touch on that.

I'm at work so I need to check that link later but is that what a judge said about her? You know how easily they can write someone off as crazy or delusional right?

Personally I think he had at least some small part in it.

Sorry I'm on my phone atm

Edit: oh and I recall her clearly stating they tried to get her to take antipsychotic medicine and tried to get her locked up. I need to read the rest of what u linked.

[deleted]

Planes all over the country are on alert 24/7. The same as why nuclear missiles all over the US are primed. It's the JOB of the military. Not just in the US, but worldwide. It's almost as if you don't know anything about the military.....

"During the height of the Cold War, NORAD had over 50 fighters on alert ready to fly air defense missions. As the perceived external threat diminished after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the number of aircraft to support this mission was reduced. On 9/11, NORAD had 14 fighters on alert at seven sites in the continental United States."

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing12/eberhart_statement.pdf

The air force only maintains 4 fighters each at 6 bases on continuous 24hr alert status (iirc states are Mass, SC, TX, SoCal, OR, SD.)

4x6 = 24 planes on continuous 24 hour alert. How many are on "none" 24 hour alert, but able to take to the sky in less then 30 minutes? How many of those 24 planes on continuous alert reacted within the hour and a half from the first tower attack to the Pentagon attack? How long does it take for one Airforce jet to fly from Mass to DC? Also, DC has an Airforce base, but I guess we will ignore this for your propaganda post.

As I said in another post. Reaction time since 9/11 has drastically changed. As has the identification of a hijacked aircraft.

No longer is it a chain of 10+ individuals at an FAA facility before it reaches FAA HQ. Only to be disseminated to the military liaison and ran ttlhrough another 10+ people before the orders to scramble are given to the Alert pilots.

Nowadays its quick. One air traffic controllers suspects a hijacking and DC is notified. Alert jets scrambled within ~8min.

JB Andrews, the base you speak of in DC, is a cargo base whose primary airframes are to move high level brass (leerjets, citations, boeing bbj). The F16 squadron there is air national guard and not on manned 24/7.

The next closest base to DC is Dover AFB... they have C17s and C5s... no fighters...

From Mass. To DC is 270nm straightline. The f15 will cruise at 750kts low level (below FL250)... so 20mins ish to get there.

And those 24 jets are always ready to go. From the time the order comes to scramble (iirc) theyre to be airborn within 4minutes. Not each of the 24, but regionally, why scramble CA jets for an eastern seaboard thing makes no sense...

The pilots change out every 8hrs or so, and there is always a maintenance and ammo team with each jet.

[deleted]

Nah, that doesn't matter at all. Nobody died. It is just a building.

It fell because it was on fire and was hit by a 110 story building collapsing.

300 firefighters were dead at the base of it.

No water pressure to fight it.

No motivation to risk lives for the building.

The firefighters knew it was going to collapse because they have eyes and saw the building was in trouble.

more of the same

NIST themselves concluded that the debris wasn't a cause of the collapse.

[deleted]

9/11 has no precedent. I think it qualifies as a unique event and should be handled accordingly.

'natch

[deleted]

So 4 planes are hijacked and crashed into city block sized 110 story buildings happens all the time where you live?

Sucks to be you.

your google link reveals that 'precedent' is a legal terminus with likely no relevance to the matter at hand.

Appreciated your informations. Keep up the great work. Adding a lot to the discussion.

Only one thing matters. Why did building 7 fall? If you can adequately rebut that, you will win the argument.

this kind of lazy reasoning isn't doing the truth movement any good.

[deleted]

that's not how an ad hominem works. i didn't call you lazy by the way but the structure of your thought. dismiss everything else and make the oddities around wtc7 the center of an argument - i would call that lazy or at least very convenient, especially since you seem to only have a really strong gut feeling about the "prima facie" status of wtc7.

that's not how an ad hominem works.

Please explain an ad hominem, and give some examples.

have at it

now explain how this

Only one thing matters. Why did building 7 fall? If you can adequately rebut that, you will win the argument.

this kind of lazy reasoning isn't doing the truth movement any good.

is an ad hominem.

Only one thing matters. Why did building 7 fall?

to reduce the whole complex matter to one question, conveniently chosen to be the most murky, while blanking out all the rest, is lazy reasoning at best. an argument ad hominem would look like "you're a truther, of course you would say that, biased as you are." or just rummaging through your post history, find a mean sentence or personal confession and use that to attack you personally, like "yeah, seems like the heroin experiments have reduced your capacity for logical thinking" (i made that up.).

In addition to refuting a part of the documentary, you have also shown that the government is completely incompetent and should not be expected to be able to do anything!

Hey. I have an idea. Since this is time stamped and in order, maybe /r/conspiracy, can create our own documentary out of bits and pieces of other videos. we could add your suggestions above into the proper categories.. or something? :D

Well done.

The video claims that a person cannot make a cell phone call from over 30000 feet, yet somehow several calls connected from flight 93 at a time when the black box shows it was very high up and moving very fast. I have tried this a few time and I have never gotten any bars on my phone once we are in the air pretty high.

I don't buy the idea that the planes were parked at the time of the supposed hijackings, and the passengers were somehow talked into calling their loved ones, pretending they were being hijacked, and then were never seen again. But how did they make the calls in the first place?

air phones

here is flight 93's

You obviously didn't watch the documentary. Since there are documents showing they weren't made from air phones.

http://i.imgur.com/u4OAexJ.jpg

last 2 were from 5,000 feet.

http://i.imgur.com/4dKcqPA.jpg

Another interesting fact, did you know in 2001 those phone were more powerful then our current phones? Less towers, so they had to be stronger and there was no standard yet for the power they could put out. Analog phones were more powerful then today's digital phones. Save on battery life too that way.

So you could try your phone today at 5,000 feet, but that doesn't mean it is at all analogous with the phones at the time.

This is just wrong. Telecommunications experts said that phone calls could connect but at those speeds and altitudes the odds of them not cutting off are extremellllyyyyy low.

Exactly what happened:

"We got the call about 9:58 this morning from a male passenger stating that he was locked in the bathroom of United Flight 93 traveling from Newark to San Francisco, and they were being hijacked," said Glenn Cramer, a 911 supervisor. "We confirmed that with him several times and we asked him to repeat what he said. He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down. He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where. "And then we lost contact with him."

http://old.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2p2.asp (fixed link)

That chart is wrong. Doc tells you why.

Not one mention of the dancing Israelis either or the GW Bridge.

ANYTHING about 9/11 that doesn't mention Israel's involvement should be mocked and subsequently ignored.

ALL of the 9/11 Truther idiocy is based on flat-out lies and jumping to INSANE conclusions.

The 9/11 truther movement is - in and of itself - a conspiracy to discredit ALL legitimate conspiracy theories. It's a combination of "Chicken Little" and "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." The goal is to provide a smokescreen of disbelief and incredulity for the NWO takeover of all world governments currently in progress.

Wait... Are you... REFUTING this irrefutable proof!?

Why don't you start by answering the questions posed in the video (requires you watch it).

Ain't Nobody Got Time for That!

Seems to me you have lots of time. Nobody can answer them, that's why.

I'm willing to bet if you took any single question raised in the video and googled it, you'd find a non conspiratorial explanation that is far more plausible.

Start with the JREF 9/11 conspiracy boards. They are populated by actual engineers, scientists, architects, demolition experts, etc.

How did one column in building 7 cause the rest to fail at the same time, causing symmetrical collapse at near free-fall speed, when buildings are built to withstand 2-5 times the nominal load.

0 Results, sorry.

causing symmetrical collapse at near free-fall speed

The collapse wasn't symmetrical, nor was it near free fall speeds.

The entire collapse took over 13 seconds from the time the penthouse collapsed, which was the visual indication of a significant portion of the interior of the building coming down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIAK6PAeyn8

Thanks for a non peer-reviewed computer animation that has no basis in reality. They won't release the model because it cannot stand scrutiny.

NIST admits free fall. It's not even a debate anymore:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I

NIST admits free fall.

Of the facade...for 2.25 seconds...the top 18 stories collapsed in 5.4 seconds (free fall speed for 2.25), if the entire structure fell at free fall speed it those 18 stories would have come down 1.5 seconds faster.

Any amount of free-fall indicates zero resistance, impossible with a gravitational collapse. These are laws you cannot argue with.

You did see the simulation indicating that a significant portion of the interior of the building came down before the facade started to collapse, right?

I'd be more than happy to rebut the peer reviewed controlled demolition simulation submitted by the fine folks at ae911truth if you'd kindly link me to it.

Leaving the science behind for a second and switching to something strictly logic related. How is it that the FDNY knew WTC7 was coming down 2 hours before it did?

No one was closer to WTC7 than they were. They assessed the damage from inside and outside that building and concluded it was coming down. There are statements from dozens of firefighters indicating that they all knew the building was near collapse. Hell, they could see defects on the outside of the building (leaning, bulging, etc.).

simulation

It's a simulation that was not peer reviewed, so it might as well be a Hollywood movie scene. Even their simulation doesn't resemble what was recorded (the rear corner buckling in on itself).

Leaving the science behind for a second

No, let's not.

t's a simulation that was not peer reviewed

As I said, kindly direct me to the peer reviewed simulation for controlled demolition, I'm DYING to see it.

So, no explanation for the FDNY calling the collapse 2 hours ahead of time?

I watched the section of the video specifically dealing with that one detail because I was curious how they addressed it.

The maker of the video actually accuses the FDNY and NYPD of having been alerted to the controlled demolition ahead of time.

Interesting that the FDNY and NYPD were OK participating in the conspiracy and coverup considering it killed hundreds of their buddies, don't you think? Isn't that very notion completely idiotic?

The video also gives a master class in quote mining, selecting a few choice statements from FDNY officers and deceptively framing them in a certain way while ignoring massive reams of testimony from the FDNY indicating that the building was about to collapse, not be demolished.

Ok so you agree the NIST simulation isn't science; not peer reviewed. Before we move onto other theories, we need to verify the official theory and that simply hasn't happened.

It's science, but not peer reviewed.

NIST worked with Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE); the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE); the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA); the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC); the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH); and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) in putting that demo together. Do you think all of those organizations collectively constructed a fictional explanation for the collapse?

Here is an article from an architecture magazine describing how the loss of column 79 triggered the collapse, and it uses stills from the very video you guys constantly link to:

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

I'm still waiting for an explanation on the FDNY calling the collapse ahead of time. Do you agree with the video that they are complicit in the coverup despite losing 342 members that day?

It's science, but not peer reviewed.

New kind of science! Let's call it "FORCED SCIENCE", or "Accept this as fact you stupid serf science". Go NIST!

Again, kindly direct me to the simulation prepared by ae911truth.

Still waiting for you to weigh in on the FDNY. I know, that fact is uncomfortable to discuss as it makes the controlled demolition theory look like a farce.

Again, kindly direct me to the simulation prepared by ae911truth.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The NIST report itself is a best educated guess. Neither side have evidence much less conclusive proof. One side is still asking questions and looking for answers. The other side parrot itself as gospel.

Please, stop delegating your cognition to whatever someone or something else said or wrote. Please! :<<<

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Absence of effort is quite telling though. If they were so convinced of their position, why haven't they attempted to put together a simulation to refute the one they spend so much time attacking?

Real science is not just attacking someone else's conclusion, it's coming up with a better one yourself.

The NIST report itself is a best educated guess.

I don't think it's a guess so much as a hypothesis based on known factors. It's not definitive though, and I don't think anyone would ever say that.

One side is still asking questions and looking for answers

Looking for answers would entail doing some actual work instead of simply attacking NIST. When can we expect ae911truth to actually contribute some real work instead of simply heckling from the peanut gallery like Statler and Waldorf?

Please, stop delegating your cognition to whatever someone or something else said or wrote.

The NIST explanation makes the most sense and is the most plausible in concert with all the other available information. The controlled demolition theory is silly beyond belief.

Evidently, that NIST report is easy to attack. Could it be because it is not very solid?

Unfortunately, the NIST didn't even try to explain the collapse per se. It's telling us tall tales involving pancakes and that's the end of it. It start with the impact of the aircraft and stop at the moment of initiation of the collapse. You know it yourself. It's an hypothesis. It's not definitive. The statement: "The NIST explanation makes the most sense and is the most plausible in concert with all the other available information." is an admission that it did not, and that you do not, have all the informations required to go beyond doubt and hypothesis and guess work and computer generated animations. You decided to believe it correct.

I know shredding doubt on and attempting to disprove an hypothesis by no means require presenting a better one. Not ever. Merely dismissing a model is good science in itself since by knowing what it isn't, we can narrow the realm of what is possible.

Because NIST is incomplete and possibly inaccurate, PLEASE, stop citing it as authoritative work. It's not helping anyone.

The point of this video is to present evidence and arguments to further our understanding of the events. To point fingers to the holes you get to know better. I am concerned much of this thread displays a concerned effort at stifling discussion. The blaring questions submitted by the video are glossed over in favour of parroting false answers to the same arguments that are in question in the first place.

The controlled demolition theory is silly beyond belief.

You are exactly right. THAT'S WHY THESE PEOPLE ARE STILL LOOKING.

Have a good day, my friend!

It's not impossible if it's just the bloody facade. It didn't have any support, that's the point.

The entire structure collapsed together, where is the evidence only the 'facade collapsed'?

The entire structure did not collapse together. The interior began to collapse first, which is clearly visible on multiple videos; the penthouse(s) both begin to collapse first and events are occurring within the building that leave visible effects on the videos taken outside the building (sunlight visible through windows, windows breaking etc.) It was only after some portions of the interior progressed through some of their collapse that the exterior facade began its collapse.

This is all clearly explained in the NIST reports.

in the NIST reports

Sorry, they haven't been peer reviewed so nobody can take them seriously.

The core collapsed first, which is clear if you watch the full video and see the penthouse collapsing. Shit, /u/WideLight explained it better than I can. He is correct on all points.

WTC7's facade was setup much like the drapes of your bed. They hung out the sides, dropping toward the ground. It's was closer to an umbrella than a solid shell.

Thank you. People ignore this constantly when talking about WTC7. It's an extremely important factor that is often completely ignored.

You are assuming that time because you saw the penthouse collapse, you have absolutely no evidence wether it was just the top floor or the entire height collapsing. According to your logic, the collapse time of the WTC7 also started when it was hit with debris, 7h total collapse time. Or when the corner of the building collapsed, 4h(?) total.

The fact is, the observable building descent is as identical as a demolition. In fact, it is everything like a demolition and nothing like a collapse. Anyone that denies that shows no intention of being rational.

According to your logic, the collapse time of the WTC7 also started when it was hit with debris, 7h total collapse time. Or when the corner of the building collapsed, 4h(?) total.

The penthouse collapse happened seconds before the rest of the building came down. Your comparison is laughably dishonest.

The gash collapse happened hours before the rest of the building came down, the corner collapse was the same thing.

How is this different than what you are assuming too? I thought we were being biased at choosing when the moment of the collapse started, did I do something wrong?

What about the WTC tower's central column that took some time to collapse? It is part of the building too and, while the rest of the building was already dust, that spike was still standing for a few seconds. Why isn't the collapse time including that?

What about chained demolitions? You know, the ones that start from one side and go all the way to the other side. Are those also not longer than other demolitions too? Is that a kind of argument to refute demolition?

"13s total, can't be demolition" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcb37yyHgT8

Just because it doesn't immediately fall all at once doesn't mean that it can't be a demolition, it only means taht it didn't immediately fall all at once.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

This article explains how the loss of column 79 started the collapse sequence. The kink in the east penthouse, followed by the east penthouse sinking into the interior of the building, followed by the west penthouse dropping, followed by the kink in the facade.

That sequence happened over 7.7 seconds in a clear east to west direction before the facade collapsed, indicating that a significant portion of the interior of the building had come down.

That article is pure theory and has absolutely no evidence to back it up.

If i'd tell you about the ae911truth engineers and architects, wouldn't you also reject them?

The problem here is that it is impossible for a high rise steel building to collapse due to fire and the only way you can prove us wrong is to provide evidence. Not theory, not words, but actual evidence.

We are talking about science, we require facts for these claims, we are not talking religion where the word of the pope or god is all we need.

No evidence, not possible. It is as simple as that.

That article is pure theory and has absolutely no evidence to back it up.

Point me in the direction of a controlled demolition simulation done with any detail at all. Point me in the direction of the "evidence" ae911truth has put forward.

Do you concur with the video that the NYPD and the FDNY are active participants in the coverup of the demolition of WTC7, yes or no?

Point me in the direction of a controlled demolition simulation done with any detail at all. Point me in the direction of the "evidence" ae911truth has put forward.

This is not a correct way of argumenting. You know very well that no matter what simulation I show you you will deny it and say that they didn't know what they were doing, they didn't know the correct values, they didn't use the correct program. It's entrapment at best and it's a bad tactic.

I can, however, point you to real life demolitions that are practically the same as the wtc7 collapse. And these being real-life examples they should easily surpass unconfirmed virtual computer generated models that claim to prove the impossible. Am I lying?

Do you concur with the video that the NYPD and the FDNY are active participants in the coverup of the demolition of WTC7, yes or no?

Absolutely not. But I do believe that they were passive participants, that what they were doing was just following orders. Such as "tell your men to fall back, the building is going to blow" and "evacuate the area because the building is going to fall". They didn't have to know about any demolition, they only had to follow orders and make sure others were safe.

You know very well that no matter what simulation I show you you will deny it and say that they didn't know what they were doing, they didn't know the correct values, they didn't use the correct program. It's entrapment at best and it's a bad tactic.

You don't HAVE a demo to show me. That's the point. No one from the "controlled demolition" camp has ever bothered to attempt one, despite the fact that the information they need to put one together is readily available.

That speaks volumes.

I can, however, point you to real life demolitions that are practically the same as the wtc7 collapse. And these being real-life examples they should easily surpass unconfirmed virtual computer generated models that claim to prove the impossible. Am I lying?

I notice there was no sound in the video you just linked? I wonder why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QaVFGEJlXo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QaVFGEJlXo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP1HJoG-1Pg

Absolutely not. But I do believe that they were passive participants, that what they were doing was just following orders.

And what about the statements from multiple FDNY officers on record as seeing visual indications of collapse? The statements of men who went inside building 7 and immediately ordered an evacuation as they concluded the building was a high risk of collapse? Multiple statements from FDNY personnel who heard the building creaking, a clear indication (along with the visual cues) that the building was a significant collapse risk?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XImQ6a-VrnA

"You see this thing leaning like this? There's no way to stop it!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7rj5UQvlWw

You don't HAVE a demo to show me. That's the point. No one from the "controlled demolition" camp has ever bothered to attempt one, despite the fact that the information they need to put one together is readily available.

I just explain it to you before, yet you keep insisting on it:

This is not a correct way of argumenting. You know very well that no matter what simulation I show you you will deny it and say that they didn't know what they were doing, they didn't know the correct values, they didn't use the correct program. It's entrapment at best and it's a bad tactic.

I notice there was no sound in the video you just linked? I wonder why?

Yet another person that didn't even bothered to watch the video but has no problems on wasting other's times by addressing things that the video already covered.

And what about the statements from multiple FDNY officers on record as seeing visual indications of collapse? The statements of men who went inside building 7 and immediately ordered an evacuation as they concluded the building was a high risk of collapse? Multiple statements from FDNY personnel who heard the building creaking, a clear indication (along with the visual cues) that the building was a significant collapse risk?

What about the others that talk about the explosions that threw them against walls before the airplanes even hit the buildings? What about the witness that describes a countdown right until the wtc7 collapsed? Or those that talk about the rivers of molten steel?

Why are you starting to talk like this? Don't you see that it is not correct to be talking about things that were already covered on the video that you refuse to watch? These are also things that the video covers.

What about the witness that describes a countdown right until the wtc7 collapsed?

It's bullshit.

Or those that talk about the rivers of molten steel?

Or aluminum, which is likely what the ductwork in the buildings was made from as well as the 2 jets that slammed into the buildings.

Why are you starting to talk like this? Don't you see that it is not correct to be talking about things that were already covered on the video that you refuse to watch? These are also things that the video covers.

Oh, I watched the part of the video dealing with foreknowledge of the collapse of WTC7. It was a master class in dishonest quote mining and completely ignored reams of statements from FDNY personnel indicating that they knew that building was collapsing. It also accused the NYPD and FDNY of being party to the controlled demolition and subsequent coverup, something you say you don't believe.

So, no comment on the clip of the FDNY officer actually pointing out to the press on hand that the burning building was leaning over, and that there was nothing they could do to stop the impending collapse?

It's bullshit.

This is why I avoid using witnesses as evidence for anything. Whenever you guys use them it's the holy truth, when we use them it's "bullshit".

Or aluminum, which is likely what the ductwork in the buildings was made from as well as the 2 jets that slammed into the buildings.

If you'd watch the video you'd know that there are actually museums with those pieces described as "molten steel debris from 911". There is also a big ball of molten concrete too.

Oh, I watched the part of the video dealing with foreknowledge of the collapse of WTC7. It was a master class in dishonest quote mining and completely ignored reams of statements from FDNY personnel indicating that they knew that building was collapsing. It also accused the NYPD and FDNY of being party to the controlled demolition and subsequent coverup, something you say you don't believe.

He didn't suggest that those men knew anything, he just suggested that the ones that gave them the orders knew about it. Completely different thing.

So, no comment on the clip of the FDNY officer actually pointing out to the press on hand that the burning building was leaning over, and that there was nothing they could do to stop the impending collapse?

I did comment, you replied with "It's bullshit". What else do you want me to say? You are biased when using witnesses that prove your point but ignore the ones that prove you wrong? I don't get it how this makes sense.

This is why I avoid using witnesses as evidence for anything. Whenever you guys use them it's the holy truth, when we use them it's "bullshit".

Does his story sound remotely plausible to you? They were broadcasting the countdown over the same frequency that the Red Cross was using? What about the fact that his story changed multiple times from the initial telling?

He didn't suggest that those men knew anything, he just suggested that the ones that gave them the orders knew about it. Completely different thing.

So the statements from the men who gave the evacuation orders, they were in on it? Is that your contention?

I did comment, you replied with "It's bullshit".

It's a clip of a fireman pointing out WTC7 leaning over and declaring that a collapse was inevitable before the building came down.

There is a world of difference between what I linked to, and statements from memory months or years after the fact. I provided proof that firemen on the scene knew the building was collapsing.

Does his story sound remotely plausible to you? They were broadcasting the countdown over the same frequency that the Red Cross was using? What about the fact that his story changed multiple times from the initial telling?

It sounds as plausible as a high rise steel building completely turning into dust for the first time and only time in all of mankind's history. Yet you don't seem to budge.

So the statements from the men who gave the evacuation orders, they were in on it? Is that your contention?

What part of "he suggested" did you not understood?

It's a clip of a fireman pointing out WTC7 leaning over and declaring that a collapse was inevitable before the building came down.

There is a world of difference between what I linked to, and statements from memory months or years after the fact. I provided proof that firemen on the scene knew the building was collapsing.

This is a complete waste of time and I already told you that these are covered in the video. Please watch it and then we may continue or don't watch it but I will not continue.

What part of "he suggested" did you not understood?

There are exactly 2 explanations for the WTC7 evacuation order.

• The chiefs who ordered the evacuation were in on the controlled demolition and subsequent coverup, despite the plot killing 342 FDNY officers.

• The chiefs who ordered the evacuation did so because they assessed the building was a significant collapse risk.

The first version is a fucking farce.

The second version is backed up by reams of statements from FDNY officers who were on the scene, who walked inside WTC7, who saw the visual defects in the building, and who heard the building creaking as it burned, all of these indicating it was a significant risk of collapse.

I posted a video clip of an officer on the scene that day pointing out the building being structurally unsound and almost a certainty to collapse. You thus far have no rebuttal for it.

This is a complete waste of time and I already told you that these are covered in the video.

The video insinuates that either the firemen were in on it, or they were simply acting under orders. The video clip I posted shatters that explanation. It's a fireman on the scene pointing out to bystanders that the building is structurally unsound, that it is going to collapse, and that there is no way for them to stop it.

Please watch it and then we may continue or don't watch it but I will not continue.

I watched the relevant portion already.

You do not have any interest on a reasonable discussion, I will not continue wasting my time.

This is the second time you've fled this exact discussion like your ass was on fire.

Must suck to have the same guy beat the piss out of you with the same argument twice in the same week. Next time come prepared.

This is the second time you've fled this exact discussion like your ass was on fire.

I see that your delusion is not restricted just to the 911 cover-up. This is the second time I've wasted time with you. Next time, there won't be next time. You have 0 evidence that proves any of what NIST claims, any evidence that proves that the airplanes that hit/crashed are the ones that we were told, you have nothing. Not even the FDR has the S/N that would tells us to which airplane it belonged to.

All you have is a pile of debris with no names on it, that is not evidence, that is anything you want it to be.

And I'm not even talking about how 14 of the 19 terrorists were actually from saudi arabia, osama even said he had nothing to do with it, yet the USA waged war with... yes, that's right, not saudi arabia. Sack of lies, disgusting and pathetic.

Next time, there won't be next time

Oh please tell me you actually mean it this time.

...we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all...We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on...Muhammad [Atta] from the Egyptian family [meaning the al-Qaeda Egyptian group], was in charge of the group...The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes

.

I begin by talking about the honorable brother Zacarias Moussaoui. The truth is that he has no connection whatsoever with the events of September 11th, and I am certain of what I say, because I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers—Allah have mercy upon them—with those raids, and I did not assign brother Zacarias to be with them on that mission

.

People of America this talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan and deals with the war and its causes and results.

.

But I am amazed at you even though we are in the 4th year after the events of Sept 11th. Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred. So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and I shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken for you to consider. I say to you Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers, but after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon it came to my mind.

.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

.

So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs.

.

You're a pathetic joke pal. That took me 10 seconds to find.

You're a pathetic joke pal. That took me 10 seconds to find.

You have no problem on believing in that, yet if I'd post the one of him saying that he had nothing to do with it you would completely reject it. But somehow I really have to believe in what you believe because fuck logic.

The guy that was getting younger and younger everytime he released a video.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/former-cia-officials-admit-to-faking-bin-laden-video.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/09/osama_tape_fake_after_all.html

What a joke

EDIT: Wait a second, you tricked me into wasting time with you again. You really don't have anything better to do, do you?

Prison Planet? You're linking to Prison Planet? LOL!

You really don't have anything better to do, do you?

What can I say, I get a kick out of smacking you guys around. And you make it so easy. Call it a weakness.

300 people. There are 50 states. That is 6 people per state.

You can have 3 groups of 2 people who rotate shifts being on alert 24/7 in order to defend you nations airspace. That is not unreasonable.

I sincerely doubt that the United States Armed Forces would not be able to accomplish this so that they can meet any threat near instantly.

It seems you are trying to insinuate otherwise and I don't understand why, it seems disingenuous.

uh, it is a lot more then 2 people dude to keep those 300 ready

Yes and there are always active personnel on those bases in those support roles that are ready to do their job to get them up in the air.

The military isn't retarded, shit rolls out fast.

Since you posted about 3 minutes after I posted this, I'm sure you carefully read my argument without just dismissing it outright.

If it takes you longer than 3 minutes to read all that and comprehend it then I think you have a reading problem or something. It took me about 2 minutes and I'm at a [4].

The military did not have enough time to respond.

8:37 NORAD puts fighters on alert

8:47 Flight 11 crashes.

Not conjecture and a fact.

9:03 NY Controllers call NORAD to tell them about 175

9:03 Flight 175 crashes into the south tower

Not conjecture and a fact

9:32 DC Controllers call NORAD and tell them Flight 77 is missing

9:37 Flight 77 crashes into Pentagon

Not conjecture and a fact

10:03 Flight 93 crashes

10:14 Controllers call NORAD and tell Flight 93 is down

Not conjecture and is a fact.

When I read your post it did very well seem like NORAD didn't have the time to react but I instantly asked the question to myself....why did the controllers and their chain of command sit on the info for so long. There was large gaps of time there before relaying the info.

Because prior to the new rules put in place because of 9/11. Us air traffic controllers had hoops to jump through before we could declare that there was in fact a hijacking.

IIRC the rules and steps correctly.

1- ask point blank verify you are being hijacked.

2 - ask the aircraft to squawk 7500.

3 - verify you are intentionally squawking 7500.

4 - tell supervisor

5 - supervisor calls facility manager.

6 - facilty manager calls regional ops center

7 -ROC calls FAA HQ

8 - FAA leadership coordinates with military liason.

9 - liason makes calls to his higher ups.

10 - begin the trickle down of orders.

The whole process takes quite a while.

Now its "fights on, fights on" immediately, no verify this verify that crap.

Good question. They thought they had time. On 9/10/01 the way everyone was taught hijackings were usually from a lone person. If it was a group it was usually to fly the plane somewhere and have a hostage situation.

US airspace doesn't have a lot of hijacking. If you look at the history you'll notice about one every 10 years. That is just something that didn't happen here. Let alone do something on the scale of 9/11. We were complicit. Unprepared.

Controllers are people too. If I were working that day, and a single plane crashed into the towers. That would be a hell of a day. A day no one would forget. I would be trying to figure out what happened. I might not notice 175 coming into the sector right away because the unthinkable has just occurred. Then boom. 2nd plane. HOLY HELL. I wish I could explain to people to young to remember how unthinkable it was. I can only say that it was.

It is old hat to us.

But then, 4 planes? In one day? That is something in a work of fiction and if you pitched to movie execs they would be like, "Too unrealistic".

Even after the 2nd plane hit. It was like far away. That is something happening in NY. A localized event.

That is why when the pentagon got hit, literally everyone was like, oh crap, it isn't just NY. That is really when all hell broke loose across the country.

Even as someone who wasn't paid to be on top of these types of things I was thinking to myself after the second tower that more was to come. There was a lot of time between then and the final crash. These people may not have been thinking ahead but at that point I have to call them idiots. Hell as soon as I heard about the towers I knew who did it. I remember turning and stating Osama was behind it as soon as we got the news. Now I am not sure what happened but at that time my direct logic pointed to him.

People say that jumping to Osama right away if part of the conspiracy. They had to push that into the minds of the American people.

Or he had just tried to blow up the Cole and was behind the embassy attacks. Seems logical.

But conspiracy folks still say it was the media in on it too :)

It makes about an hour of that movie ..

Irrelevant.

The whole premise of the section is why weren't the planes intercepted.

They weren't intercepted because there was not enough time to intercept them.

DC has more radar monitoring then any other city on the planet. DC has a local Air Force base. DC is protected by surface to air missiles and other anti air. So why, an hour after NORAD was put on alert and a half hour after the second tower was hit, did they not have enough time to down 77? Can you prove the military is not ALWAYS ready for attack and at standby? Because I'm pretty positive they are constantly flying around the borders, 24/7, with attack planes at the ready. It is the exact reason the military exists. Do you honestly think all the planes are tucked away and only taken out for special occasion? Prove the airforce is not capable of having planes in the air, especially in the most protected portion of the US, in less then 5 minutes, let alone over one hour.

Everything within your long post was opinion, based on your own personal narrative. Provide some facts. Debunking with opinion is not debunking anything.

How do you know 77 is coming if no one tells you?

As far as anyone knew at the time it was a localized NY event.

When the Pentagon was hit that is when everything around the country went berserk.

It was no longer a NY event.

Again, DC is the most restrictive airspace in the world. They clearly knew about 77 heading to DC for at least 20 mintutes ahead of impact and they knew we were under attack the second that the second tower got it. I remember that day, and when tower 2 got hit, that is when everyone knew. Not when the Pentagon got hit.... There are literally thousands of anti air batteries and missile posts protecting our nation's capitol. Why wouldn't they shoot the plane down? This wasn't the first plane, so there should have been no confusion as to 77's intent. There are plenty of good reasons why you'd want to allow a plane to take out the part of the Pentagon that housed those investigating the disappearance of 2.4 trillion dollars, but that's not proven fact and just my opinion. I admit that.

I'd also like you to explain the particular flying maneuvers of flight 77. I am not a pilot, but it does seem highly unlikely someone off the street could pull it off. I'd have doubts most human pilots could. It does seemly oddly familiar with something you'd expect someone remote flying could do though, since they are not dealing with the g forces.

They clearly knew about 77 heading to DC for at least 20 mintutes ahead of impact and they knew we were under attack the second that the second tower got it.

Did NORAD know? Nope. Nobody called them.

See the timeline with audio of the actual call. Under Blelated Notification An identification technician at Norad’s Northeastern headquarters calls the F.A.A.’s Washington Center to advise it, erroneously, that American 11 is headed its way. On the call, the F.A.A. tells the military for the first time that American 77 is also missing.(9:32) (impact: 9:37)

I'm not going to argue the semantics of what definite a half-truth or not.

I forgot what question I am supposed to answer after I was going to write a definition of half-truth and then said... nah not worth the time.

wikipedia that shit... or do I have to put it in youtube form for you to understand with some sinister sounding music behind it....

wikipedia

Fine: Half-truth: The purpose and or consequence of a half-truth is to make something that is really only a belief appear to be knowledge, or a truthful statement to represent the whole truth, or possibly lead to a false conclusion.

I forgot the question awhile ago. Honestly. So if you are waiting for an answer, you are going to have a long wait.

Seems pretty clear you are here to deflect. You aren't very good at it though.

It's a dipshit shill, you're wasting your time.

Classic response.

I am not from conspiratard. I was doing this in /r/conspiracy before they existed. In fact, I've been researching this subject since 2005-6.

Yeah and there is a reason we are discussing this in /r/conspiracy sir and not... /r/engineering /r/science /r/flying

They are less informed I guess.

Wouldn't your name be a violation of the no stalking rule? Just sayin'

[deleted]

[deleted]

dumb tactic, win by refusing them oxygen. let them play their games, the people who know know, the people who are curious can find out the truth. who gives a fuck what a shilltard thinks or says? you are NEVER going to change their minds

You are a racist and a fool.

i'm a racist...? lol

a fool?

aren't we all.

Oh, c'mon. Yelling "conjecture!" repeatedly is a million miles from "proved to be conjecture" If that's the style of debate you want, how much of the "irrefutable proof" claimed for the video is actually exactly the same "conjecture"?

Seems to me, OP provided a pretty credible assessment of why the air defense system wasn't able to handle the situation. Of course, you're right to point out that doesn't destroy the case entirely, but the presence of rational explanation certainly does weaken it.

and I watched ALL 6 hours of his movie and he took all of 3 minutes to respond

Are you claiming the sourced timeline provided is "not based on anything at all"? Because it certainly seems to show the military didn't have sufficient time to respond. There's no apparent "conjecture" there.

I love the sneaky little equating of "conjecture" with "bullshit". As noted, the video is crammed chock-full of "conjecture". I guess we should thus ignore it entirely, because "we have no reason to think the other 50% is legit," right?

Frankly, this is one of the things that piss me off about the whole 9/11 movement: their apparent unwillingness to accept any aspect of the official story, even where it's well-documented and entirely plausible.

It is not up to me to "prove" what he is saying

OK, then why is your title titled as such? You were asked to provide counterpoints and all you responded with was "Conjecture!"

That's what he asked you to do and you didn't. Can you not see your hypocrisy? And you didn't answer my question, which I would like. Your title is "proof", your "proof" was discredited and you then state you don't have to give proof. I'm just interested in an explanation on how you can arrive at that logic. I have no need to address the videos, because this is about the contradictory statements you have made.

I can't take your evidence seriously because your statements so far have made me very highly doubt that anything in your videos are of substance.
People have asked you to discuss the videos, but you respond with hostility (I'm attacking you? Please.....) and refuse to debate. This makes me think that your videos do not have the "irrefutable proof" you claim they do, because if your video contained "irrefutable proof", I'm sure it would be easy to counterpoint, rather than just shouting "Conjecture" or watch the videos.
I hope you can see where I'm coming from, I am just genuinely curious why you think you can show "irrefutable proof", then refuse to discuss why other's could think the opposite.

I'm not trying to build a case against it. I'm asking a question about two conflicting statements you made here, on Reddit, and I would like it if you could explain this.
Also, this sub is conspiracy, a sub which often claims it loves scrutinising things. Why is my scrutiny unwelcome?

Ah, the tards have arrived. Wear the downvotes with pride.

I"m pretty sure he just posted the NORAD log for that day as reported by the NY Times. No conjecture or opinion. Looks like actual evidence and sound logic to me.

I would also love for you to explain how tower 7 collapsed at freefall speeds?

It fell in the path of the least resistance.

Yep, Down. That is the path of least resistance.

But why?

Now that is a hard part to explain. That is why they have advanced degrees in college for physics and engineering.

But why?

Gravity.

Symmetrical, free-fall collapse would not have happened due to fires alone. All of the support columns on the exterior and interior support structures would need to fail almost simultaneously. Please understand that these buildings are designed with something like 5X redundancy of their load capacity.

If what you're saying is true, that fire alone brought it down. It should have toppled, not disappear symmetrically into its own foot print at free fall speeds.

This building in Bejing was COMPLETELY engulfed in flames and it did not suffer any type of collapse or toppling.

Let's compare that with WTC 7

All of the support columns on the exterior and interior support structures would need to fail almost simultaneously. Please understand that these buildings are designed with something like 5X redundancy of their load capacity.

It should have toppled

That is where the problem lies. You overestimate the strength of the materials involved. You don't understand how something can be strong enough to stand, but weak enough to collapse. Your mind can't picture that because it is so unlike the everyday world you live in.

http://imgur.com/a/mDqCh

Building anything stronger than it needs to be isn't cost effective.

And you clearly underestimate the strength of modern steel highrise buildings; and over estimate the ability of hydro-carbon fires to completely destroy them.

Do the fires on WTC 7 look anything like the fires in Bejing? Why did that tower not collapse or topple? The fires clearly engulfed more of the building than in the case with WTC 7.

Was the tower in Beijing built in the same way? No? Then the comparison is invalid. Buildings vary wildly in construction and materials. Picking a random building to compare it to just because it was on fire doesn't make for a valid argument.

I think we also need to consider the fact that the towers were hit by a fucking plane with all the twisting and torque that is involved with that.

When a building is standing up, the beams act like your spine, and they stack on each other. But when you slouch, you get back problems. The heat alone may not have been enough to drop the tower. The torque, by itself, probably wouldn't bring it down. But when you bend that and then soften the metal with a heat that intense, you're holding up tons of concrete with marshmallow

not to mention the TVCC was still under construction so not nearly as much stuff inside to ignit. Most of the fires in the wtc were from burning office equipment

I have to point this out, mate. I have to say it. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were also built quite differently. Both designs collapsed all the same. On the same day. Both from "fires". Never once before, never once after either! Wether you like it or not. Whether I like it or not. It can be a big fluke or a smoking gun. You can't dismiss any of that.

1 and 2 collapsed nothing like 7. Completely different.

in fact you can see in the videos of 7 collapsing that the penthouse on the very top of the tower collapses before the entire building starts to fall, hinting that inner supports had all ready started to collapse before building 7 was visibly falling. a very different picture than the twin towers.

Both from "fires".

And being hit by planes / massive amount of debris from a collapsing skyscraper.

Well no. They don't look like the fires in Bejing. That is why I don't make that comparison. The mandarin hotel fire is a bad example anyway because I can show you a document by the construction company that it was built with the World Trade Centers failures in mind.

Was the tower in Bejing hit by a 110 story tower next to it? Did Bejing have 300 dead firemen at its base? 9/11 didn't happen in a bubble. You can't treat it as a separate event.

I think you both might be mistaken. You are both fervently insisting that the twin towers collapsed, somehow, and you argue about how or why. I, however, don't believe they collapsed at all. These towers got turned into dust in mid air and laid down a 3 INCH thick layer of dust over Manhattan from river to river.

Perhaps, the towers didn't collapsed at all. They got obliterated.

Judy Wood's firing her lazors. Read that one too. Looney Tunes.

Wat? What's going on? Why are you talking to me about lasers? ?:<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Bank_Building#Remains Can you explain to me how a building collapsing could propel bone fragments onto the roof of nearby buildings? (and not just a few) Those bones were pulverized at an altitude high enough for them to land on the top of a skyscraper. I don't get how a collapse could do that.

Einstein

do you know how much potential energy a 110 story building has? That shizz is squared yo. The kinetic energy released from the towers collapsing was huge. How anyone who knows anything about science can see that and not see the massive amount of forces involved... makes my head explode. Implode? Yeah lets go with implode.

you underestimate the sheer size of these buildings. These buildings were nearly a half a million tones.

Look at him go! As the strength of the evidence goes down, the insults goes up! That's a clue, I think.

Your fire explanation doesn't hold up.

Something that has never happened before was predicted early by them, how? No other steel structure building has fallen from fire alone.

Why did the building fall at freefall speeds? Even if it was indeed caused by fire, why does it fall straight down, rather than matching NIST's models?

[deleted]

How could I possibly know? There had been a recent elevator renovation on towers 1 and 2, however. Is it very hard to believe though that the government has the capability to rig a building with explosives through some means?

See, the demolition theory makes absolutely no sense to me. Have you ever seen a demolition? The explosions are INCREDIBLY loud. Not a single video or person interviewed at ground zero reported hearing such loud, evenly placed explosions. There were some general "booms" reported, but the explosions in a demo are sharp cracks that are very unique in profile.

[deleted]

Exactly. It would have been extremely obvious if it was a demolition. I'm not even arguing the politics of the thing (I'm no good at that shit), but the collapses shared very few of the characteristics of a demolition.

Yeah people have no idea what a massive undertaking it would be rig two massive buildings with explosives. That's before taking into account not being seen while doing it and somehow not having your explosives found by anyone.

Again, you should watch the video. There are hundreds of accounts of explosions and many recordings of them.

Only people who don't understand the concept of "evidence" would use youtube videos as evidence.

Probably during the renovation of the elevator shafts weeks prior, as the video points out.

That would be nowhere near enough charge coverage, or explosives in general. The entire building would have to be rigged, and it's painfully obvious that no such thing happened.

It's painfully obvious you didn't watch the video.

It's painfully obvious you don't realize these buildings weren't demo'd.

you can't even get to parts of the building you would need to..

[deleted]

So even though that has literally never happened before, they knew it was going to happen then? How did they predict a steel structure building would collapse when that is never what happens to steel structure buildings?

[deleted]

just because it hasn't happened before, it doesn't mean its impossible.

You're right, but it does make it very hard to predict that it was going to happen.

First off, steel structures have collapsed from fires before, just not steel structures of that size.

Source?

(Note: I did not write this myself, I was in the middle of writing it but remembered having seen it somewhere).

There's a list of buildings which have collapsed due to fire here: Historical Survey of Multi-Story Building Collapses Due to Fire. Scanning this document, to include only building which are made of steel (and not e.g. reinforced concrete), shows only two:

Alexis Nihon Plaza Montreal, Canada

• Steel frame with composite steel beam and deck floors; fire resistive without sprinklers
• 15 floors, Office
• Oct. 26, 1986, after 5 hour fire, which then continued for 13 hours
• Partial 11th floor collapse

One New York Plaza New York, NY, USA:

• Steel framing with reinforced concrete core, fire resistive with no sprinklers.
• 50 floors, Office
• August 5, 1970
• Connection bolts sheared during fire, causing several steel filler beams on the 33-34th floors to fall and rest on the bottom flanges of their supporting girders.

Can fire destroy steel?

Photographs of structural steel deformed by fire are shown on page 3 of The Reinstatement of Fire Damaged Steel and Iron Framed Structures.

Steel loses strength when it's heated, and eventually fails, which is why it needs protection.

Fuel-based fires get hot unusually quickly.

Normal/natural fires usually spread slowly, and are limited by available ventilation.

What about the WTC specifically?

There are two explanations of how/why fire caused the WTC collapse here:

• Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
• The Role of Metallurgy in the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Towers Collapse

The latter reference contains an explanation for the collapse (in the side-bar, on the right):

First, in the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001 likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower. Second, the towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the subsequent multi-floor fires encountered on September 11, 2001 if the insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.

It also says that they found no other causes:

Also, the investigation team neither found nor invoked any extraordinary events, beyond the terrorist attack that damaged the structure and removed the insulation, that led to the collapse of the towers.

The above (aircraft impact dislodging insulation) doesn't explain the collapse of Building 7. The analysis of the Building 7 collapse states that the failure of this building was more caused thermal expansion (steel changing size and shape): its fire-insulation wasn't affected by an airplane crash, but it failed in the 300°C-450°C temperature range, before it got hot enough (e.g. 650°C) for the steel to lose significant strength:

In the WTC 7 collapse, the loss of steel strength or stiffness was not as important as the thermal expansion of steel structures caused by heat.

There are various ways in which the WTC buildings and the WTC fire were famously unusual or unique.

The authorities learn from disasters and update the building codes and fire codes accordingly: perhaps that's another explanation for why we may not see an event quite this like one again.

Sorry none of the steel frame buildings you mention collapsed. The only ones in your PDF are on 9/11.

Did you read my post? It acknowledges that and shows the ones in the pdf that are unrelated to 9/11.

Is it so unbelievable that it's not a common occurrence? It was a very particular circumstance. Not very many buildings as big, or as on fire. If they didn't fall you'd be saying right now "how can you believe they didn't fall. It's ridiculous they got hit by a fucking plane".

Well if it's such an unbelievable circumstance, why hasn't the NIST report been peer reviewed? Because it cannot stand the scrutiny. Therefore, there is no scientific backing for the collapse of building 7. None.

You realize it's not a common practice for that type of report to be peer reviewed right? The group itself investigates situations they don't need another group to investigate groups that investigate the government.

But the main issue here is you'll be able to find a million things you read on infowars or some other stupid site (that aren't peer reviewed) and it'll take a long time to debunk if I am able to you'll just have another thing but it won't stop you from believing the first thing.

Truthers just spout out the talking points of the truther movement with very little critical thought. I've been asked about that report almost word for word how you asked me. Eventually real critical thinkers and scientific skeptics decide on a good answer and you move on to the next statement.

Nobody can review the findings of NIST. Their magic computer model is a tightly guarded secret.

So we have a first ever, fire causing steel building collapse with potentially thousands of buildings at risk and nothing is being done. This isn't science, it's fuckery.

Seriously as I said in my original post there were two other buildings. And a solid explanation of why it's science. You have your motivated reasoning so I'm not going to spend anymore time on you. But stop thinking you know shit the rest of us don't. You're purposefully plugging your ears and humming with you'd eyes closed. You want to be mad about some secret, you're suddenly some amazing physicist and engineer who can debunk all of this science but you're just parroting other conspiracy theorists.

You aren't willing to find out the truth is more mundane than you hoped.

Hey I found some peer reviewed studies on 9/11.

http://911inacademia.com/journal-papers/

Maybe you can show me some peer reviewed science relevant to your position?

Show me one peer review of those papers. That is from someone who hasn't also written a conspiracy report. They are hardly reputable publications.

On an unrelated note I often wonder why you suppose Snowden or any of the other whistle blowers have mentioned anything. Surely they'd be able to find out, Snowden has many classified documents including very small operations. Something of this size would surely show up in there.

How did they predict a steel structure building would collapse when that is never what happens to steel structure buildings?

There are obvious signs a building is about to collapse. Creaking, bowing out of structural beams, etc. They're professionals and do this for a living; they know what a dangerous building looks like.

So even though that has literally never happened before, they knew it was going to happen then?

This literally is how science work. Didn't you know that?

Fire alone? Are we ignoring the two jumbo jets that slammed into them? Or was that faked, too?

No jet slammed into tower 7, to which I was referring.

No, just those two giant skyscrapers that collapsed right next to it.

So you're saying structural debris from the falling towers was the cause of collapse? Do you have anything to back that up?

Other than the collapsed buildings? Or the NIST report? I'm sure these are all part of the conspiracy, too.

http://patriotsquestion911.com

Go to this page and find testimony from -

• 220+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
• 1,500+ Engineers and Architects
• 250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
• 400+ Professors Question 9/11
• 300+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
• 200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals
• 400+ Medical Professionals

Ok. That adds up to a couple thousand, most of which aren't professionals in a relevant field. What about the rest of the people in the country who support the official story or something similar?

It's called being willfully ignorant.

Really? So only the people against the official story are allowed to be knowledgeable? All the scientists and engineers and architects that support that story are wrong because they're not part of a little club?

People will say whatever gets them cash and keeps them alive. Even FBI agents and people working at ground zero question the official story.

I'm an engineer who "buys into" the official story. Where's my cash, ive got student loan payments I'd love to get paid off. Though I suppose I AM still alive too.

That doesn't really invalid what I said at all.

I'm not interested in attempting to change the mind of an obviously closed-minded person. I'll leave you with this - the #1 reason that I, personally, do not believe the official story, and believe that our government at the very least knew what was going to happen long before it happened, would be the actions of Larry Silverstein long before and after the attacks.

Larry Silverstein losing a shit ton of money convinces you that he had something to do with 9/11? After years of fighting with Insurance companies and spending millions on lawyers he finally was able to eek out a couple million more in insurance than he had paid for the buildings a few months before the attacks. Now consider what 13+ years of rent in two of the most valuable commercial properties in the world are worth. Billions. Larry Silverstein unquestionably lost astronomical sums of money from 9/11.

Yep, Down. That is the path of least resistance.

Seems 99% of the remaining columns would provide a hell of a lot of resistance.

Edit: Looks like Dimension is loosing track of his replies, two replies but no answer.

And what do you know about structural engineering? Learn some, come back and elaborate on what you dont understand.

Well I'm an engineer, so I understand plenty. Don't take my word for it, watch the video and take [dozens] of structural engineers word.

What type of engineer? Because I too am in the engineering field, but just because someone might know electronics doesn't mean anything.

How many engineers on that list come from the top structural engineering grad schools?

Time to attack credibility? How about you point out the peer reviews of NIST findings? Can't do it?

So we don't like to answer questions?

I'm still waiting for someone to answer one of the 50 posed in this video.

Lol OK. Someone above me already offered to answer any of those questions. Our conversation on the other hand... You said you were an engineer, and I asked you what type. You still haven't told me. I assume it's because it falls into a discipline that has nothing to do with building structures.

I don't make a habit out of revealing personal information here, but my credentials don't matter regarding the claims made in the video. It's all sourced.

You used your credentials as evidence of your ability to understand the evidence in front of you, but now you dont want to say what type of engineer you are? Quit trying to bullshit.

Ohh wait, you do make it a habit of posting personal information. Just the other day you let a whole sub reddit know you're a software developer. So I'll assume computer science engineer or electrical engineer. Which means you know jack shit about structures.

I appreciate you digging through my history, but you seem to overlook the part where I do property investment & development which most certainly has an engineering component.

That's absolutely hilarious. Do you honestly believe that doing property investment has anything to do with knowing anything about engineering? Or did you go to architectural school for 6 years to "invest" in property. Which I assume means that you take a few bets on the stock market and assume that makes you an expert trader as well.

Do you know what developing is? Who cares what I do, what relevance is it to this video?

Your the one who brought your credentials into this when you said you were an engineer, which was obviously misleading because that holds no relevance.

If you had not claimed to be an engineer than what you do would be irrelevant. But you brought it up.

Nope, your buddy asked me where I got off thinking I understood 8th grade physics. What do you do that makes you an authority on engineering?

He asked you what you knew about structural engineering and you said you where an engineer, later to be revealed that you were a software engineer. Saying you were an engineer holds as much relevance as saying you went to college or high school.

My career hold no relevance because I never claimed to know something that you did not and I never claimed to know more than all of the experts in the world.

I never said I was a software engineer, he did, because I participated in software discussion. My career is irrelevant, as is yours. If you can refute even a single question posed in the video, by all means.

Well I'm an engineer,

A sandwich engineer?

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-subway-promotion-to-honor-subtember-11,33768/

Well I do make kick ass sandwiches.

There's literally dozens of us!

Seems 99% of the remaining columns would provide a hell of a lot of resistance.

Can I see your calculations that support this?

Sure, let me go whip them up.

Cool. When will you present them?

You'd think. Seem perfectly logical. But is it?

Yes. It would. That is a fundamental question to understand why.

Why something can be strong enough to hold up a building, yet weak enough to collapse, and provide no resistance for 2 seconds.

Doesn't seem logical.

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

• [/r/SubredditDrama] /r/conspiracy finally solves 9/11! Also get angry when it&#x27;s pointed out that they didn&#x27;t

^{I am a bot. Comments? Complaints? Send them to my inbox!}

The thing that really stands out to me is how the day before all those stocks were sold from the airplane company because people had insider knowledge.

And let us not forget the government sealed the records of who these traders were.

Where can I find information about this?

SEC: Government Destroyed Documents Regarding Pre-9/11 Put Options

Thank you!

Another one from CBS - Profiting From Disaster?

Best I can do is reddit silver

My hair's silver.

Wise sage, what is the meaning of life?

42

Your cool little alien makes me think this awesome sub needs some amusing flair options. :)

Wise sage, Mr Dong

FTFY

To give your life meaning.

and to understand, or try to, what that exactly means

No one wants to hear about them pubes here, buddy. /kidding

does the carpet match the drapes?

+/u/dogetipbot 200 doge

+/u/dogetipbot 5 doge

The link there to the SEC response goes to a 404 page.

Guess that evidence was conveniently "destroyed" as well.

It works fine here.

To clarify, not the washingtonsblog.com link. I mean the URL on that page, supposedly containing the SEC's response:

http://maxkeiser.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/FOIAresponseGIF1.gif

It's no longer there. Given that, kinda hard to complain about the SEC not retaining their documentation. :)

My mistake.

I did a google search for the name of the file and found a cached copy here http://archive.is/cjlte

Thanks, appreciated. Have to wonder if the author made efforts to locate the document anywhere else, such as in the 9/11 Commission archives? Or any of the other data? Because non-SEC documentation forms the vast bulk (actually, all but one!) of the references for the footnote in question.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/06/sec-government-destroyed-documents-regarding-pre-911-put-options.html

My bet is Cheney and his cronies were all over this. Greed is a hell of a drug....oh wait that's cocaine. .. never mind

No need to bet, they most definitely had it planned before any of them were elected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (commonly known as the "Clean Break" report) is a policy document that was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then Prime Minister of Israel.[1] The report explained a new approach to solving Israel's security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on "Western values". It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy including the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and the containment of Syria by engaging in proxy warfare and highlighting their possession of "weapons of mass destruction".

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

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. established in 1997 as a non-profit educational organization founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal is "to promote American global leadership."Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity." With its members in numerous key administrative positions, the PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.

"New Pearl Harbor"

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/IraqWarPart1-Timeline.pdf

Don't worry though, although these are words and plans written by these people years before 9/11 and the Iraq war, which then got elected and then carried out the plans, it was made up by some conspiracy theorists on the internet and you're all crazy. /s

traitors

All these weapons and ammo purchases are because they know that the shit is going to hit the fan....soon. Hollow points? For training? Yeah right!

Realistically, yes. If you have the money, and obviously they do. you buy the same type of round to practice with that you would carry everyday.

While my weapon may cycle perfectly, not a single issue ever with full metal jacketed practice rounds, and then I load up some hollow points for defense and hit the streets, all of a sudden, I need to use my weapon, first round fires, second round jams, I clear it and again, jam.

Now assuming I live I find out that my weapon does not reliably cycle with the defensive rounds I have chosen.

This is just one reason, another would be knowing what to expect with your weapon and its rounds.

If you can afford it, practice with what you every day carry.

Most cant, so they don't, it makes sense.

Of course what they did, makes a little less sense.

Yes and no. Why not train with only 10% pricey rounds? And jamming/dealing with jams is a different part of training than accuracy/speed. I lean to the "getting ready to slay humans" idea. Not just the ammo but the hiring frenzy

Not the best source

http://www.tsa.gov/careers/becoming-part-tsa-team

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-03-23/business/bs-bz-federal-hiring-20130323_1_job-openings-federal-workers-post

No teachers for packed schools but armed thugs coming to every street corner. Trained with their daily carry of human killing hollow points.

If our leader (I live on Canukistan) wasn't so cozy with US ideals I would feel even safer being up here

It is a brewin'

Yes and no. Why not train with only 10% pricey rounds?

You just read what I wrote right? I explained EXACTLY why you wouldn't do this, hell why you shouldn't do this.

And jamming/dealing with jams is a different part of training than accuracy/speed.

Yes of course, but not knowing how your primary round will perform in your weapon is foolish.

I lean to the "getting ready to slay humans" idea.

This is called bias.

No teachers for packed schools but armed thugs coming to every street corner.

That is because teaching requires skills, training, and intelligence.

Trained with their daily carry of human killing hollow points.

Being a canuck I can forgive you for thinking the only reason for a hollow point is to kill people, a FMJ round will kill just as well, but may over penetrate where as a hollow point round has less chance of over penetration and much less chances if a shot is missed.

It is a brewin'

Amen.

I will save you the reddit point by point as I am able to retain what was written previously.

The difference is shooting different rounds and how your weapon handles said rounds should be a part of training.

Different rounds have vastly different effects this is why they exist. Utilizing all rounds available should be an option and trained for and with

As a tax payer yet not for the shit in question I am concerned with frivolous government spending and blasting millions of pricey rounds for training falls in that category

We have guns in Canada and I am a proponent of firearm ownership, that said I plink off many different rounds even though my old shotty jams with slugs....expensive but fun slugs. I do not shoot every round a slug.

Missed one....armed thugs take the training we are discussing. A good well equiped teacher costs the state less than a good well equipped thug, and the payback is ten fold

The entire point of a reddit point by point (as you put it), is to ensure that the reader knows what is being discussed.

The difference is shooting different rounds and how your weapon handles said rounds should be a part of training.

Not really no, this isn't call of duty, you aren't picking up ammo crates off the ground with unknown rounds in it.

Different rounds have vastly different effects this is why they exist. Utilizing all rounds available should be an option and trained for and with

Handgun rounds have one purpose, stop the person or animal they are being shot at. You don't shoot antitank rounds from a handgun.

As a tax payer yet not for the shit in question I am concerned with frivolous government spending and blasting millions of pricey rounds for training falls in that category

Agreed.

We have guns in Canada and I am a proponent of firearm ownership, that said I plink off many different rounds even though my old shotty jams with slugs....expensive but fun slugs. I do not shoot every round a slug.

This has no bearing on our previous discussions.

Missed one....armed thugs take the training we are discussing. A good well equiped teacher costs the state less than a good well equipped thug, and the payback is ten fold

I missed nothing, I commented on it.

Nope. The report concluded.

"A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades."

First off. You just said "The report" and people are upvoting you. What report?

Let's break down your quote for argument's sake:

A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10.

"No conceivable ties" sounds like a big claim to make about a world as big as ours where everything is conceivable. Also, why would the investor not having ties to al Qaeda make him suddenly innocent?

Insider trading does not need to have any correlation with a gang of rebels in the Middle East to be a crime. Someone with pre-knowledge about the 9/11 attacks could have no connection whatsoever to al Qaeda, so I don't see what that is supposed to prove.

Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades."

Once again, how does this prove innocence? Who runs that "specific US--based newsletter? And more importantly:

Why did it run 2 days before the attacks recommending trades that perfectly correlated to the attacks?

I really have no idea why you were upvoted beyond the fact that this post has surely reached beyond this subreddit and people are upvoting anything that allows them to continue feeling safe and secure in their ignorance.

EDIT: So the report he was referring to was the 9/11 Commission report. Here are some interesting counterpoints to the validity of that report. Because a lot of people reference it to back-up claims that nothing about 9/11 was out of the ordinary.

"A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent

Here's a source - Google Books

And here is a source to the validity of the 9/11 commission.

Believing it would be like calling a T-mobile call center and asking who is the best cellphone provider, and believing they aren't speaking from bias.

But T-Mobile is the best provider

That tells us absolutely nothing. What institution? Who were they trading for? I'd like to know actual details, rather than "no, it was fine, trust us". These are the same people who have said everything was fine at the NSA, trust us.

Why the nondescript, next to nothing reporting on a very important issue?

Whoa there slugger. I was a replying to someone who asked what report. I linked him to the report.

Sorry. That wasn't directed at you. More the report itself.

So the 9/11 commission was 100% incorrect about everything? What happened to finding the truth? Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Attack the claim based on it's inaccuracy, not on who published it.

Or do you not believe inconsistencies should be investigated unless the outcome is consistent with what you expected?

I do not see this specific issue being listed on the wiki page you provided, nor have I seen anything that brings the put option investigation findings in question. Which by the way was conducted through collaboration with many individuals across many agencies.

I'm willing to reassess my opinion if you have something that can refute those specific findings. Pointing at the 9/11 commission isn't enough to dissuade a skeptic and you have to know that.

Or do you not believe inconsistencies should be investigated unless the outcome is consistent with what you expected?

Hi, welcome to /r/conspiracy.

[deleted]

I think he was asking for a source. As in- what report stated this, published where and by whom...

As I have already asked: What report was he/she referring to? They literally just wrote "the report".

I have not made a decision on whether or not to believe it. I am only pointing out inconsistencies and false correlations. It certainly seems that the person who wrote those quotes already had a conclusion in mind and was throwing claims together to support it, and doing a sloppy job of it.

When you read anything you should pay very close attention to what is being said, how they are saying, and what is not being said.

And if you expect to have a serious conversation, can you show me where my analysis is wrong?

[deleted]

It is kind of hard to take the 9/11 commission report seriously considering how many valid concerns have been brought up about its legitimacy.

It's based on a flawed premise. If you had foreknowledge of the attack, you'd be a complete idiot to carry out a blatantly obvious trade like the one described: sticks out like a sore thumb, and would be immediately and obviously subject to regulatory scrutiny. It'd be like burning your house down after taking out an extra-large insurance policy. Anyone with half a brain can come up any number of better ways to take advantage of the situation.

Additionally, there are billions of trades made every day, and thousands of stock recommendations. This kind of thing inevitably happens, just like winning the Powerball. Just a couple of weeks ago, elsewhere on Reddit was a recommendation to bet on the first score at the Super Bowl being a safety. It happened. Doesn't mean the poster had any inside knowledge at all.

In the apparent complete absence of any supporting evidence to back the "inside knowledge" claim here, and the fact that the action makes no sense, the coincidence described in the report [sorry: I mean, the "Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States"...] simply makes the most sense.

I think you analysis is flawed. People did make trades two days before the attacks (regardless of why) and they were not subject to any serious scrutiny whatsoever.

As a matter of fact, two building collapsed exactly like a controlled demolition in front of thousands of people live and billions of people on television and yet human nature cannot stop us from bickering like idiots about it.

So the idea that X couldn't happen because people would obviously react by doing Y if a flawed notion that isn't based on reality. Life has way too many intricasies to make such assumptions. History has proven time and time again that people are not predictable. So I think your concept of human nature is deeply flawed and probably explains why you would believe an explanation by a commission that was originally supposed to be led by Henry Kissinger, a person who

has been accused by many of having been involved in past government coverups in South America (specifically, the overthrow of the Allende government in Chile), and of having on-going business relationships with members of the bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission#Henry_Kissinger

As I have already asked: What report was he/she referring to? They literally just wrote "the report".

It's from the 9-11 commission report. Just copy the quote text into google and you'll be able to pull it up.

no conceivable ties

move along sir, nothing to see here

guilty until proven innocent, etc

the zionist media pundits proclaimed it an alq/ubl op within 20minutes, despite no legit claim of responsibility, no evidence and no investigation (for over 400days) and the sheep accept the fairytale

A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6

Did this "US-based investor" have any "conceivable ties" to the US government?

"The vents that took place on 9/11 were part of a thirty year old conspiracy." Bob Kerrey, 9/11 commissioner

The thing that really stands out to me is how the day before all those stocks were sold from the airplane company because people had insider knowledge.

I don't comprehend your statement. I doubt it's a valid sentence.

Uh, what?

I get it now. FWIW, I read it as the first example below; as in the day before they sold those stocks they hadn't yet sold any stocks. At times English in general is difficult to understand (after a couple of cocktails).

to me is how (the day before all those stocks were sold)

to me is how (the day before) (all those stocks were sold)

The thing that really stands out to me is how the day before all those stocks were sold from the airplane company because people had insider knowledge.

And supposedly all trade records were kept on the floor where the first plane hit. Just like the DOD records that kept receipts for the missing $2.3 trillion at the Pentagon accounting office...which was also 'conveniently' destroyed.

Larry Silverstein (reputed mobster) only made one payment of the $120 million downpayment for the lease of the twin Towers for $10 million before the false flag. He turned $10 million into $4.6 Billion in 6 weeks (The insurance company, Swiss Re, paid Mr. Silverstein).

Lease agreement:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wtc-developer-larry-silverstein-looks-ahead/

Payout:

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=15459

The Silverstein Group bought the lease on the WTC site for $3.2 billion. They then recovered $4.6 billion total from the insurance policies on all the buildings. That net difference of $1.4 billion represented a windfall of sorts, but only if you imagine there were no costs to clearing the rubble and redeveloping the site (and having no rental income while those two processes dragged on). Moreover, in 2006, $2.5 billion of that insurance recovery was paid out to the PA for redevelopment purposes. So, even without all the aforementioned costs, it's hard to see how the Silverstein group came out ahead.

Given how long and expensive the redevelopment of the WTC has been, it's actually quite hard to imagine Silverstein Group will ever come out ahead during Larry Silverstein's lifetime. Their only hope is in additional recovery from the airlines, but that case has been in limbo for over five years (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-18/wtc-damages-ruling-nears-in-silverstein-airlines-case.html)).

It was a lease, not a purchase. Only $10 million ever traded hands and even the (asbestos) clean up was paid for by the insurers. He only had the buildings for 6 weeks. One does not pay the entire lease upfront....it only cost his group $10 million.

The insurance law was such that the whole lease contract paid out...IE $4.6 Billion.

The lease simply structures the purchase of use of the properties over a certain time frame. The attacks did not release Silverstein from the lease.

There was no purchase...ever.

The only thing Silverstein purchased was insurance. I can tell thet you never investigated this nor did you watch the video. Are you just doing a drive by trolling?

Only three months before the attack Silverstein signed a rental contract for the WTC. Silverstein agreed to pay $115 million annually over 99 years a total ($10 Million per month rent). The Port Authorities remained the owners of the WTC. --Die Welt, Berlin, Oct 11, 2001

Larry was lucky, that he was not responsible for liabilities towards the Port Authorities. Silverstein, despite not being the owner of the buildings, was the sole beneficiary of the insurance indemnity payments of more than 7 billion Dollars.

Good for Larry that he had not forgotten to increase the insurance policies, just in time, when he signed the lease three months before the catastrophe happened: "Larry Silverstein, since July landlord of the towers, demands from the insurers 7.2 billion Dollars compensation, his speaker, Steve Solomon, said.

... The Port Authorities of New York and New Jersey, owners of the WTC, agree with Silverstein's demand." --Die Welt, Berlin, Oct 10, 2001.

A lease is a purchase of use of property. You don't pay the purchase at once--the payment is structured over time--but you are still contracting to pay for the use the property. This is a fundamental point of contract law and a simple economic reality, so I'm straining to see why you think it is in contentious.

EDIT: Since your edit including the bolded text doesn't seem to get the point, I'll put it this way.

On September 10, 2001 what did Silverstein Group have in terms of assets & liabilities re the WTC site?

--It had an asset of the future income flow of the property for the duration of the lease and a liability for the cost of the lease over that time.

On September 12, 2011 how did those assets and liabilities change?

--Its asset was gone, it still had the liability for the lease, it had a new liability to the extent it had to pay for redeveloping the site.

The insurance payout was a new asset. But was it greater than the value of the asset destroyed and the redevelopment liability? It's not at all clear. Silverstein Group lost rental income on several of the largest office buildings in one of the most in-demand locations in the world for over 12 years. That is a huge loss by itself. On top of that loss of revenue, it had a massive new liability: the cost of redeveloping the sites. The question isn't whether the insurance payout was greater than the purchase price of the lease; the question is whether it was greater than the hypothetical value of the WTC site's rental revenue + the value necessary to redevelop the WTC after the attacks. That is very doubtful.

If you watched the documentary you would be able to answer your own Q. All buildings under the WTC title, were not assets. They had a $15 BILLION asbestos abatement liability.

That is why the NY Port Authority could not sell them to Mr. Silverstein. When a 70 year old jew gets a 99 year lease (250+ acre feet of prime land...Bldg One 110 acres, Bldg Two 110 Acres, Building Seven 47 acres + all the parking) for $10 million per month, then signs insurance papers that pay a $3.2 Billion double indemnity in case of total destruction due to a terrorist act...you know that the building was marked for a target.

Mr. Silverstein wasn't going to live to be 169 years old and he knew none of his partners were going to survive after the 10 AM board meeting breakfast on floor 107 ( Windows on the World restaurant ).

He made sure everyone of his investors/partners showed up, then cancelled and was a no show...and his daughter who worked in WTC Bldg 7 was also a no show that day.

Since NY Port Authority owned the building and Larry owned the dbl indemnification terrorist policy but only leased the WTC brand, he was paid the full benefit of $6.4 Billion and tried to fight for double that amount claiming each incident was an independent terrorist act (IE: $6.4 Billion per building).

Silverstein was paid the money and had nothing to do with the NY Port Authority. The Port Authority owned the 16 acre footprint, the asbestos, clean up debt, and the rubble pile...which they immediately sold to China...while it was still smoldering.

A lease is a purchase of use of property. You don't pay the purchase at once--the payment is structured over time--but you are still contracting to pay for the use the property. This is a fundamental point of contract law and a simple economic reality, so I'm straining to see why you think it is in contentious.

$15b demolition + $7.2b insurance policy - $11.8b rent = $10.4b to build anything he wants

That is very doubtful.

I just don't understand how anyone can watch just a few minutes of any of these videos and not be skeptical of the official report.

It's one thing to be skeptical of the official report. In fact, most people, to varying degrees, are. What's ridiculous is the claim of "irrefutable proof." That is horseshit.

It's one thing to be skeptical of the official report. In fact, most people, to varying degrees, are.

Then why don't people say "While I disagree with your conclusions, I too feel as though there should be more investigations into what DID happen on that day since we're obviously being fed SOME amount of horseshit?"

Why do the skeptics only focus on destroying the stories of the conspiracy theorists instead of helping to destroy the story of the government? It's not like the conspiracy theorists are the ones with the guns killing foreigners and sending citizens off to their deaths.

I have no ironed-out stance on the issue either and sit in the "Don't know but there's definitely some fishy shit in there" camp so I find the "irrefutable proof" statements to be improper as well. I just question skeptics' choices of whose lies/misleading statements to try dispelling.

Personally, I find the guys who claim moral authority to write laws into existence and kill with impunity to be more important to deal with than the small group of people claiming to know the truth about the government secretly being a race of lizard people.

I get you. I mean, I'm a fucking communist, I know all about that feeling like you're spitting into the wind while half the people who say they're with you are blowing in your face. But, above almost all else, insisting you actually know more than you do instantly poisons any effort at waking someone up. You have to suggest, it's such a fucking subtle thing, trying to convert someone, they have so many ingrained defense mechanisms.

Goddamn Commie!!! Shakes fist

I'm a panarchist or ancap or moralistic nihilist... something to that degree.

So as long as you're also of the opinion of "Get the government out of my ass" go ahead and fire away at conspiracy theorists claiming to have irrefutable proof when all they really have are inconsistencies in the narrative and not a true narrative to replace the old one with. My comment above does not seem to apply to you.

It just seems like a decent proportion of skeptics take up the "defending the status quo" side of the argument instead of calling bullshit on both sides of the narratives being fed.

On both sides btw.

also in the case of vehement debunkers ..the ones that say things like 'troofer' and 'conspiritard' I think are just in it to sound superior.

doublethink

FTFY :p

I had a co-worker leave an office after I was talking about this video saying that he "refuses to believe that the government could go so far and kill over 3000 of it's own people."

I asked him about wars. He didn't respond and walked out.

Keep that up and you'll never make employee of the month.

Yeah! That front row parking spot next to the handicap spots...

Shhhh

They let them die with their ignorance. They didn't kill them with their cunning plan involving thermite and cruise missiles.

Probably because he didn't want to waste his breath.

To be fair, I watched the first Loose Change and said the same thing. That proved to be a poor choice.

Ignorance is bliss. People are happier when they can trust their government.

I don't trust my government in the slightest. That doesn't mean this asinine theories are correct. Just because Bob is stupid doesn't mean Larry is smart.

Larry downvoted you because he understood the reference. Bob downvoted because Larry told him to.

Alright, I keep making this point to no avail, but I'll give it another shot. Pointing out unexplained phenomena, or refuting evidence for a given theory, is not evidence of an alternative theory.

There is not one single point in all the clips above that provides evidence of an inside job. Not one. To change people's minds this movement requires a clear and concise alternate explanation for the events, and then evidence supporting that explanation that outweighs the evidence for the current consensus view.

Currently all that is presented is holes in the consensus view. Ignoring for a moment the fact that most of these "holes" aren't really problems at all, let's assume for the sake of argument that there are things that happened on 9/11 which are truly unexplained. That fact would in no way support the notion that there was an inside job (or any other alternative explanation for that matter).

Pointing out unexplained phenomena, or refuting evidence for a given theory, is not evidence of an alternative theory.

So what? Your line of reasoning is garbage. We don't need evidence for any 'alternative theory'. No alternate explanation is necessary or even desirable at this point. You can prove that x!=5 without saying what it's value actually is. You can also prove 'the government is lying' without knowing what the truth is. You can't deal with step 1 so you want us to skip to step 2! Sorry, but the reason that you are getting nowhere is that your opponents are smarter than you and are avoiding the little trap you are setting.

Whether you know it or not what you are really doing by attempting to 'make this point' is get your opponent to waste their efforts. You'd send them out looking for ways to discredit themselves by connecting dots at random. It's either a decent ploy to defuse a thread, or a desperate attempt to preserve your own denial. Either way, no thanks.

See, this is exactly the problem. What are you saying? What is the assertion? I can't even begin to assess whether I believe what is being said until something clear and consistent is actually being said. Does the government lie? Absolutely, but that isn't evidence they are lying now. Could the government be lying? Sure, but that isn't evidence that they were involved in the attack.

What is your position? Whether you like it or not, this is absolutely a necessary step in making an argument about ANYTHING. If producing an alternative theory would be a "waste (of) their efforts", this is because there is insufficient evidence to support their belief. Come back when you DO have sufficient evidence.

This is how making an argument works. If it is garbage to you, than your position is rife with logical fallacy. What I am requesting is very simple. Something happened on 9/11. If you do not accept the consensus explanation for what happened, than how do you explain it? Simply state what you think happened. It is impossible to assess the validity of a claim that has not been made (and you know this full well, which is exactly why you are so resistant to making a concise claim). You would prefer to dance around in a logical no-mans land that allows you to poke holes without making assertions. To the extent that you do this, you will be ignored.

Posters are always asking on this sub, "how could anyone still disagree with us at this point?" I have just explained how. It is not merely that you have provided insufficient evidence. It's that you haven't even proposed a hypothesis that could be proven or falsified. Your just playing word games with fragments of data to imply things but not state them.

Blah blah blah what a broken record. I have made no misstep on logic. It is your own already dissected reasoning which is fallacious. My reply would have to be a rehash of my last post, but i dont like repeating myself as much as you do. It would also be a waste of time because apparently you aren't listening. You say we can't prove the official story is impossible without proving what really happened. Take that to any first year formal logic class and let the teacher explain why you are wrong. I'm done wasting brain on you.

Alright, I tried. Keep raving if you want. I don't feel the need to insult you, you'll pay the social consequences.

Yep that's exactly what keeps weak minded people sucking the teat of the status quo, peer pressure. First they laugh, then they attack you, then they claim it was obvious all along. If you think somebody like ME gives a single flying f^ about the approval of people like that then you underestimate us. We are the ones howling in the forest while they bark at us from their doghouses...

So brave. I just got a raging angst boner from that. You just marching to your own drum in a storm of rebel badass while stroking your misunderstood glistening cock. Take me now.

First thing you've said so far that actually could be true. I'll take it as your surrender in the debate? Unfortunately for you I'm in a committed relationship with one of the many hot chicks who shares my worldview, like the rest of my family and nearly everyone else I know. maybe in America denial is still going strong, but in my country 90% of the population rejects your government propaganda, and it's people like you who end up frustrated and alone. It's not as personal for us, we have the advantage of being less emotional about the subject, which let's us discuss the evidence more objectively. I hope you'll get there in time.

I don't live in the U.S., and there isn't a nation in the world where 90% of the population believes this drivel about 9/11 being an inside job.

I'm not swayed by some overwhelming social denial. I simply place more weight in the consensus of the vast majority of scientific experts than I do in a third rate YouTube video.

Please stop pretending that it's ME who is being naive. You belong to a small portion of the population that has existed forever. Your positions are not only simplistic, they're predictable. Just google "psychology of conspiracy theories" and skim any of the dozens of studies that have been done. You're not bucking any conformity, your conforming to a very easily defined group. Your beliefs aren't based on the evidence, they're based on your own psychological tendencies. If you lived 100 years ago you'd be ranting about the explosion of the USS Maine. If it was 50 years before that, you'd be blabbing about Lincoln's assassination.

You're not digging toward some deeper truth. You're grasping at shadows in a self-imposed delusion that's only purpose is entertainment value as a moderately amusing sideshow for the rest of us. The sad part is that you can't see that.

I'm not swayed by some overwhelming social denial. I simply place more weight in the consensus of the vast majority of scientific experts than I do in a third rate YouTube video.

When the commissioned experts are given millions of dollars to put out their reports and some Youtuber pokes holes in every one of them, that Youtuber's mission is accomplished. It's not his responsibility to their job for them, for free, alone, with access only to public information.

Also, this Youtube video is positively first rate in comparison to most 9/11 truth films.

Sorry, I've already read several of those 'studies', they are great entertainment. They beg their questions and are not science as much as masturbation, editorial speculation and generalizations supported only by assumption.

As far as the historical examples, you really don't want to get into that minefield. That you imagine history proves conspiracy unlikely only shows your unfamiliarity with the subject.

You'd actually find that science is on my side too, if you bothered to consider the evidence yourself or actually talk to scientists off the record. I actually do have a graduate degree in a hard science and published academic papers. It is true that the vocal minority of thugs like you can still make it costly to publically endorse the truth but the 'vast majority' consensus you claim to trust is a laughable mirage hung entirely on the snow job that was the NIST report.

I am not digging for any greater truth lol, especially not from you, just trolling a troll. Youre right though about one thing, our discussion here has been little more than an amusing side show. Thanks for the all the laughs.

Yeah, well your dismissal of those studies would fall into the fore-mentioned predictability. Thankfully, your personal approval is not required for studies to be valid. In fact, an inverse correlation appears to be emerging in this regard.

Vocal minority!?!? Please provide a single paper published in a reputable, scientific, peer-reviewed journal that makes any claim suggesting 9/11 was an inside job.

This talk about scientific majority is insanity. Let's start with a SINGLE PUBLISHED PAPER OF ANY KIND. Just one. I don't know if you're joking or serious, and each possibility seems more sad than the other.

You're entirely predictable yourself, as are the incompetents who have attempted to 'analyze' dissent as if it were delusion. What you experience when you confront the evidence you refuse to accept is called cognitive dissonance. The twisted logic you are forced to employ to support your beliefs is essentially a self preservation mechanism.

You ask me to provide published articles to prove that dissent exists off record? Your request is ludicrous and my refusal to engage you on your biased arbitrary terms should also be predictable. The reason such papers don't exist is political, not scientific. If you don't understand that it's to your own discredit. Im not your monkey and I wont jump through any hoops to convince you. It's clear that would be a waste of time. The real inverse relationship is between the length of this conversation and the quality of your attempts to manipulate it.

Sorry, my misunderstanding, you said off the record opinions. So let me get this straight. Your position has degenerated to the point where you are hypothesizing that a majority of scientists silently agree with you, but are either to afraid to publish or no magazine will do it. Aside from the fact that there would be no way falsify this, do you not see how absurd you are being? How weak this position is if you have gotten to this point?

Just to make sure I have this right; you're saying that first there were hundreds, if not thousands, of government officials who were necessary to commit the conspiracy in the first place (a position without a single piece of hard evidence directly connecting a single person to any single action that incriminates them, even after 13 years). But not only that, the dozens and dozens of scientists behind the NIST report are in on it to (without a single piece of evidence to back that up). But not only THAT, the entirety of the scientific establishment must be in on it because they are unwilling to publish the work of the MAJORITY of scientists who secretly agree with you (all without a single bit of evidence). Do I have that right?

So now we're talking about tens of thousands of government employees and private scientists who would have to be in on the conspiracy, and than millions of scientists who know the "truth" but are unwilling to write about it publicly. Without any evidence to prove these libellous claims whatsoever. Is that right?

And it's me who is displaying cognitive dissonance? Do you know what the words you are using mean? Are you perhaps mentally ill in some way that I was unaware of? You're about one mental step away from standing on the side of the road in rags with a megaphone screaming about the planet nibiru, while people try desperately to avoid eye contact with you, and toss you spare change.

Not bad! Unfortunately for you I am a person who works in a scientific role and am surrounded by educated professionals and engineers. It is not a theory but a fact that I have had conversations with dozens of such people off the record and yes almost universally they have misgivings about the official story. You say I must be delusional to imagine this scenario, but I haven't imagined anything. I am simply reporting to you the relatively small sample that I have been able to collect personally, and so far the data indicates that your assumptions are incorrect. Scientific consensus does not exist in support of the official story. You are the madman in this situation, are you not currently raving false delusions? From the evidence I've seen it would appear that you are.

So, as a scientists, you are surely aware that an anecdotal poll of the opinions of friends and acquantances doesn't constitute evidence...right?

Sure. Did you mistake this forum for an academic setting? There you go trying to set arbitrary limits on the debate again. Check yourself, this is just a forum on the internet. I'll feel free to continue reporting my own thoughts and personal experiences here and you can feel free to ignore them if it suits you. I salute you, Congenital_derpes, seargeant first class in the reddit thought police. (betraying my contempt with a wry smile).

The limits aren't arbitrary. You are free to share your unacademic opinions all you want, just as members of the Elvis-is-still-alive society are. I wouldn't want to prevent you, so long as you admit that that's all you're doing.

It is actually your position which contains false assertions of academic rigor and scientific consensus, not mine! The only claim I've really made is that the absence of alternative theories and academic papers shouldn't be interpreted as proof of scientific consensus to the contrary. If you want to call that an unacademic opinion, well,.. I can't be bothered to deal with that infinite loop. I suppose I tire of your little merry go round... The audience has long since gone home, I hope we are satisfied now? If nothing else I admire your persistence but I have a dog to walk.

You don't seem to know what the word science means.

This thread is a month old and there still aren't any posts actually giving answers to any of the questions asked. It's remarkable, really!

Well, a lot of it. But that's not the relevant point I'm making. What I'm saying is that even if everything stated is true, that still wouldn't prove there was an inside job.

No, it simply doesn't. There is a lack of understanding regarding how one can draw conclusions from given information going on here.

I have seen the documentary, its a fucking joke to anyone who has any background in research or science. But regardless, my point still stands, and it's highlighted nicely in the little linguistic sidestep you just did by saying "safe to assume". That is not a conclusion based on evidence. The consensus explanation could absolutely be false. That DOES NOT constitute evidence that the government perpetrated the attack. LET ME REPEAT SO YOU GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD: The falsehood of the consensus view DOES NOT constitute evidence that the government perpetrated the attack. Period, end of discussion. Come to me when you DO have such evidence.

no you havn't seen the documentary, not this one anyway ..because if you had and you are intellectually honest then you CANNOT make the statement "its a fucking joke to anyone who has any background in research or science"

That statement shows that you havn't watched the documentary or possibly you had it on in the background while you thought up some more brilliant retorts.

You keep saying the same thing, but what you arn't getting is ... nah fuck it, you arn't worth my time anymore ..good day

Did that make you feel better?

I'm not trying to take a jab at you, but how was it a joke if you have a background in research and science? It cites its references, shows why they came to each conclusion throughout the video, uses interviews from people architects and engineers, and they clearly spent a ton of time researching this. You make a good point before when you said this is not direct evidence that the government was the perpetrator, but the video pretty handily shows a ton of reasons why they are the most likely culprit. No this wouldn't hold up in court as it stands now, but I think the point its trying to make is that another investigation should be made into what happened, not just blindly start arresting politicians. This is the only video on the subject that I felt wasn't just wild speculation and full of out of context information like most conspiracy videos.

edit: nvm you pretty much answered this question below, I just didn't notice

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

• [/r/conspiracy] I know this is an bias place to post this, but since I talk about 9/11 I don&#x27;t think anywhere else will see past that, am I missing something in our argument or is he?

^{I am a bot. Comments? Complaints? Send them to my inbox!}

So, here's what I find frustrating. It is impossible to have a productive conversation on this topic unless the theorist is willing/able to clearly outline what they are professing. But whenever I ask most theorists to do this, they squirm out of it.

So in the interest of being generous, let me say this. If someone is genuinely only saying that there are some inconsistencies, and that there should be another investigation, fine. That's at least a reasonable position. I don't think it's necessary at this point, there have been multiple investigations now that have addressed the bulk of the issues in a satisfactory way to me, but hey, I can understand that.

If a theorists is submitting anything further than that, they really have no grounds for doing so at all. This video provides not a single piece of direct evidence to warrant claiming anything further. In fact, most of it is literally posing questions ominously and then implying an answer which is anything but a necessary conclusion. It's completely unscientific. Citing news reports on the day of the event are completely irrelevant. Scattered and cherry picked eye witness testimony is irrelevant, no matter what it means in court of law, eye witness testimony is the LOWEST form of evidence in the court of science. Then a bunch if it is just straight made up, or hypothesized from thin air.

So here's the problem. Most truthers imply or outright say the bigger assertions constantly. They claim that it's "obvious" the government was involved or whatever. But than if I press them for evidence, they retract back to the "we're just asking questions, etc." position. Until they get worked up again and then they'll outright claim that Cheney is the one who pushed down the plunger on the towers destruction, or whatever claim they want. It's a mental game that they're playing on themselves.

No theory explains every possible detail. The theorists compile the little inconsistencies (which literally every theory ever has), and than concoct a half-baked theory with the pieces, without noticing the new half-theory is WAY less plausible than the original one.

If the "official" story has some holes in it. The inside job story has gaping voids in it from start to finish. Inconsistencies in the official story aren't evidence for an alternative theory, and the official story explains the vast majority of the issues perfectly well.

Lastly, most of the issues this video brings up have already been addressed and explained satisfactorily elsewhere, and those explanations are simply being ignored. The rest of the issues brought up simply aren't issues at all, they're just logical fallacies or historical inaccuracies. I mean, Christ, it's equating 9/11 to Pearl Harbour as though Pearl Harbour was an obvious conspiracy as well, when that isn't even a reasonable historical position, let alone an obvious one. It's just a pile of half-truths, lies/inaccuracies, and logical fallacies. I'm not saying it didn't take a lot of time and effort to produce, and I think the producers truly believe what they're saying, but that doesn't make any of it valid.

Edit: Also, citing references doesn't help when the references cited are bogus. Or more often, when the fact cited doesn't necessitate the conclusion drawn. This is the most common issue, not that the facts themselves are wrong, but that the theorists think those facts mean something they don't.

Edit 2: As an illustration of the above edit, what many of this videos points amount to is for them to show something that happened on 9/11 and than basically just go "look at that, that's pretty weird isn't it..." And the majority of the time the answer to that is "...no, actually, it's not weird. It's only weird because you don't know how that thing works."

first off just wanna say I'd rather not be called a "truther", I know its typical to have people accuse skeptics as "sheeple" but I don't play like that because I think both make me cringe, so don't just start labeling cause it instantly belittles anything I write. Also if you look at my post history the only conspiracy theory I can be accused of is believing the Jets will be good next year (I really do but I've believed that before...). I do agree that anytime I see a video online that's titled Wake up or 7 reasons why it was an inside job! ,like a goddam buzzfeed article, it usually starts with some scary music followed by half-truths and misrepresentations. I believe any conspiracy theory is plagued with people like this and it gives anyone else who agrees with any part of the theory the "tin foil hat" label. I'm a 23 year old guy, graduate of a respected university (Quinnipiac), held down many jobs ranging from cooking to an internship with Merrill Lynch (I'm not just saying this shit to be cocky I'm trying to nail home a point), but as soon as I start thinking that Osama didn't actually plan 9/11 I'm suddenly some paranoid mental patient whos opinion should be ignored. I'm not saying you do this, but while we are airing our problems I thought I would contribute.

Now to the point of all this, I get what you are saying in general but this video does very little of what you are complaining about. His citations aren't ConspiraciesTotallyHappen.com they are articles from news sites like NBC or CNN, when getting technical he has interviews of people who would be considered qualified in the field that they are speaking of and many I would say are experts. I'm sure there might be some citations that are less than reputable but that is probably cause this video is 6 straight hours of him fact checking and calling bullshit, its not a teenager making a 5 minute youtube video completely backed by only their opinion. For the cellphone part actually had a video of the guy proving that cellphones couldn't work anywhere near cruising altitude while being filmed, not just random speculation like a lot of videos do. He cites books on physics, engineering and other peer reviewed/proven/well respected sources for most of the video. There's a reason that people are saying you didn't see the video, because your saying things that literally don't fit with this guys video at all.

I understand there are plenty of conspiracy theories that aren't true, and I'm not just talking about the ones about lizard people. But people on the other side should understand there are more proven conspiracy theories than you probably think. http://web.archive.org/web/20061026155231/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proven_conspiracies In the end both sides just want the truth, so instead of just getting angry people should try actually working with each other to get a more clear picture. To start you should say specifically what sources you don't like, what the video got wrong or exaggerated, why what your saying is a better perspective (cause right now that video has much better sources). I can't just defend the video in whole when I don't know what actual problem you had with it when you just say its lying and half true.

Ok, you just ignored everything I said and than pointed back to the things that the video does that don't matter. It's not that I haven't seen the video, it's that we clearly have different definitions of what constitutes evidence.

We're already going down the line of my very first point. So let me stop for a moment, and just ask you, what are YOU saying. What is the assertion. What happened on 9/11. If the planes weren't flown by terrorists, who flew them. What is the explanation that you are lending creedance to. You are the one making the claim here. You are the one saying the consensus explanation is wrong. Well, what is the explanation then?

I truly mean this sincerely. I can't even begin to address the topic until I know what you are claiming. I'm done with this game of punching a shadows because people won't say what they mean. Make your claim, or nothing can move forward.

I also never called you a truther.

the only points where you said anything specific is about eye witness accounts aren't credible which is I'm assuming talking about the eye witness accounts of people hearing and experiencing explosions and the part about Pearl Harbor (which I agree with, I don't pretend to know anything about what the conspiracy part is about that, I'm not usually on the conspiracy side of arguments except a few). My point was that you had a problem with the video, if I'm wrong correct me, because it doesn't provide any evidence, which in my opinion it has plenty of examples and sources that would be considered evidence. I would consider the sources behind debunking the "official" story of what happened on 9/11, I wasn't arguing that the evidence is proving who did it. I do believe it was the certain people in government but I'm not saying that's anything more than my speculation (I'm not an expert or someone who has the irrefutable evidence to convict someone so obviously that's just my opinion). I wasn't making a claim... please quote me from my above statements that says anywhere that I claim I know who did it. I was asking you what problem you had with the video (yes its narrative is leaning towards the government but it is mostly debunking the official report and asking for an investigation since there are clearly discrepancies, which is putting it lightly, in what they found). After rereading your right, you didn't call me a truther so I apologize. Your the one who claimed it was a joke if you had a background in research or science without backing this up, what part is unfounded in research or science? You are the only one claiming anything (except some the stuff I said that had nothing to do with 9/11, like my age and background and thinking that people should approach this subject with the same goal, a better understanding of what happened).

My point: what part of the video was stupid, throughout all these paragraphs you do not point out anything specific IN THE VIDEO, you just speak in generalities about other 9/11 conspiracy videos/theories. Just tell me a part and maybe I'll agree with you, its a theory with reasons that back it up, while all you've said is that it's bullshit. Which it might but if you don't back it up why would I believe you? This isn't supposed to be bashing you, I'm sure there are problems with this movie.

What is the assertion. What happened on 9/11. If the planes weren't flown by terrorists, who flew them.

This is totally disingenuous. If you make a ludicrous claim - for instance that you have an IQ of 300, I will argue that you are a liar (because there is no evidence of any human having an IQ of this level). There is no onus on me to prove what your IQ actually is - you are the one making the absurd claim.

The same thing goes with the official story of 9/11 - it is a ludicrous fiction, and those who pick it apart are not obliged to provide a rival explanation. We don't know for certain what happened on 9/11 - we just know that the official story is not credible, and in many cases not possible.

Please see my reply to Bubba-Booey below.

k

Unless you can find anyone claiming otherwise sabramesh is asbsolutely right.

The fact that one has no viable alternative does not mean the holes they've poked in a theory no longer exist.

No, it doesn't. But it does mean that there is no more plausible explanation available. Inconsistencies in a theory do not "disprove" the theory. EVERY theory has inconsistencies. People can, and do, argue against the theory of evolution by doing exactly what this video does. Could the theory of evolution be incorrect? Sure. Why isn't it widely discounted in the face of these inconsistencies? Because it is by far the most plausible explanation for the phenomena being observed.

The question is which theory is more plausible. Which theory provides the most likely explanation. This is how theories work. This is how we move on from old theories and adopt new theories. You can call it disingenuous if you want, and kick and scream about how it's unfair, but this is how it works, in every occasion that a theory is dropped.

To the extent that the truther movement chooses to ignore this necessity, they will be ignored by the people who matter. Propose a concise and internally consistent theory of your own, or the existing theory remains the only plausible option. End of story.

We are not talking about mere inconsistencies!

Taking your example of the "planes being flown by terrorists", the likelihood that this is true has been demonstrated to be vanishingly unlikely, if not impossible. Not simply because there is no evidence to back up the assertion that these named individuals were even on the plane, but because those individuals were conspicuously incapable of flying even small cessna's, and because the aircraft were manoeuvred at such speeds (600mph) that they would have broken up before impact due to air resistance.

The official "theory" has been shown, time and again, to be work of fantasy.

Alright, so, just no. This has not been demonstrated at all. You have either been mislead, or you are being intentionally dishonest. This deals with all the bullshit about the pilots in depth: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Flight_School_Dropouts

The second assertion is simply incoherent. The planes DIDN'T break up before impact. That's all one needs to know to know that your statement doesn't even make sense. This assertion doesn't even have anything to do with who was flying the plane. This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. The statement that the planes "were maneuvered at such speeds (600mph) that they would have broken up before impact due to air resistance" implies a whole mess of necessary explanations that you aren't giving.

So, the most obvious point would be that...the planes didn't break up. So this statement is simply untrue. But say that your statement is true. Well what does that then require to also be true? What hit the buildings and the field? Where did the planes that were hijacked go, and the hundreds of people who are missing that were on them? How were those planes hidden from radar but these other UFO's, that travelled at speeds too high for planes, were picked up by radar and mistaken for the planes? How do we explain the fact that millions of people saw the planes crash into the towers, dozens saw the plane crash into the pentagon, etc? This is just off the top of my head.

When you "poke a hole" in the official story, you imply an alternative that then needs to be explored and have evidence to back it up if it is to be taken seriously. Truthers never take this into account. You seem somehow oblivious to what your own statements would have to mean.

Repeating that the consensus view has been shown to be a work of fantasy doesn't make it true, no matter how loudly or relentlessly you babble about it.

Edit: When you say it has been demonstrated as unlikely, you need to take into account the question "unlikely compared to what?" I agree that the entire fucking scenario was unlikely, that's why it's one of the most fascinating and amazing and impactful events in recent human history. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. Stop saying it's unlikely without providing what would be a MORE likely explanation. Every proposal that counters the "unlikely" consensus account of events is WAY less likely itself! But you never seem bothered by that, because you aren't searching for the truth, you've made up your mind that there is a shadowy elite controlling the world and holding us down.

The planes DIDN'T break up before impact.

Yet the (objectively determined) speed they were travelling would have made this AN INEVITABILITY if the planes were 767s (as per the official narrative). Therefore the planes were NOT 767s but some other type of aircraft.

So here we are presented with a choice. What is more likely? Is it more likely that the stat you have for the speed that would cause a 747 to break apart is incorrect, and that perhaps that is the guideline limit provided by the manufacturer for the sake of safety, but isn't the absolute physical limit (and suicidal terrorists aren't concerned with what's safe)? Or that all the other complicated things that would need to be explained that I mentioned before are the case?

Is it more likely that the planes are physically capable of flying that fast? Or that the real planes were switched out somehow and have disappeared along with all the people in them, that the flight controllers were all fooled by this and thought that this other hypothesized plane was in fact the original one, that the government engineered all of this to kill it's own citizens to get into a war at great risk to its reputation forever, and that none if the thousands of people who would have to have known about this massive switcheroo have come out to say it happened?

For reasonable people, the answer to this question is a no brainer. Why is it so challenging for you?

Edit: 767

Flagged as "Sheep-Believes "official" 9/11 Fiction" in RES.

Thank you.

Lol. You play so well into your own cliche. Thanks for that.

You have now given me two great laughs.

Thanks for that!

No problem buddy. At least you don't take yourself seriously either!

Life's too fucking short my man...

Have a great day.

I'll repeat for the last time. All of the evidence posted is addressing some perceived hole in the consensus story. Nothing posted is evidence that the U.S. government was involved in the attacks. This isn't an issue of the quality of the evidence posted (so it doesn't require a detailed counter-argument). It is an issue of what can be concluded from the evidence provided. My point being, everything stated in the post could be true, and it still wouldn't constitute any evidence that the government was involved.

Yes I do have a background in research and science, although common sense is perfectly sufficient for most people on this matter.

Your assumption is a result of poor critical thinking. Even if the official report is false, this does not mean we can assume this was done purposefully by the government to hide the fact that they were involved. It could mean any number of things. It could simply be that the committee got it wrong (at least on some points), this is perfectly possible. It could mean that they did intentionally lie about certain things for other reasons than that they were part of the attack, of which there are any number possible things they could want to hide. Perhaps how badly they screwed up on that day, or to conceal some other information that could be damaging to the country or themselves. It could even mean that they are intentionally lying and framing the terrorists after the fact because they wanted to use that as a means into war in the middle east, even that does not mean it was THEM who had to have committed the attacks. Or could it mean that they did it.

Any of these explanations are completely reasonable possibilities to speculate about (and this list isn't exhaustive). However, we don't have sufficient evidence to draw any conclusions as to which is the case.

So, if all you are trying to get me to admit is that there are elements of the official report that are wrong. I will absolutely admit that that is at least 100% possible, even likely. (I won't say it is beyond a shadow of a doubt, because that isn't the case with anything, and is simply manipulative language). If you are using the conclusions that parts of the official story are wrong to then conclude that the U.S. government was involved in committing the attacks, you have no grounds for doing so, it is unfounded speculation. If you are willing to admit that, than we are in agreement. If not, you are either delusional, or you are mistaken on the necessary steps of logic.

I get your point, and as for myself I tend to lean on the conspiracy theory side, but that's just because it's more interesting. But I'm not one to go around claiming for sure that it was an inside job. My debate is that our government, and/or people in general, have the capability to do these types of things and get away with it. And I'm definitely not pointing my finger at any one person, or organization. There is just a ton of shady stuff going on in this one, that it's hard to believe everything that certain people are saying.

I appreciate your reasonable response. Let me say 2 things: 1) of course the government lies about things. They lie constantly about all sorts of things. However, this is not evidence that they committed the attacks, or let them happen, etc.

2) I don't think this could be kept secret if it were indeed a conspiracy. The number of people required would simply be too vast. I mean, thousands. Humans just don't work that way. Bill Clinton got a blowjob in his own office in the White House and it came out. And only 2 people knew about that! Imagine the level if secrecy required.

I appreciate your candour and honesty. The problem with most folks espousing a conspiracy theory is that they like to play it both ways. If you pin them down they'll say "I'm not saying I know who did it, I'm just asking questions about the official story", but if you let them go for awhile talking about 9/11 they'll throw all kinds of shit in about who probably/maybe did it and why. Until you call them on that and they retreat again. It's a mental game that's being played, and they're playing it on themselves.

Honestly, no one wants to believe their own government is screwing their own people over.

well, play devils advocate, its fucking scary to think your own government doesnt mind killing you for multiple agendas.

Ok, but to be totally honest, if I were in a position to either lose or gain billions, I wouldn't mind the casualties (of course I'd make sure my family and friends wouldn't be around the mess). Call me heartless, but if I feel this way, it makes it easier for me to understand that others would too.

and its easier to kill them for money when you arent staring them in the eyes.

very true.

read through some of the oh so vile debunking pages. a lot of the points made in the video have been adressed years ago.

this has been debunked hundreds of times

because why would the government use "drones" when aircraft were already hijacked anyway?

Is there any proof that the planes were actually hijacked? I mean, 6 of 8 missing black boxes, and the 2 'found' are kept a secret. No proof of the men boarding the planes, etc.. All the missing pieces of plane at the pentagon, not releasing that video footage, etc. etc..

So what happened to the missing planes

Maybe they're weren't any planes to be missing. All drones from the beginning. Far fetched, I know, but we're all guessing at this point right, I mean, I'm just some guy who doesn't really care to begin with, with zero experience in anything we're discussing, just chatting online about possibilities to someone I don't know.

no no... United Airlines is missing their multi million dollar plane.. something DID take off and it did not land.

To be completely fair in terms of evidences, and lack thereof, I have no proof that any planes flew anywhere, other than the two plane-like objects that hit the 2 towers, which I saw on countless videos from countless sources. That being said, I have to either believe you, or what Bush & Fox News/CNN/etc. tells me happened. If I'm going to question anything, I might as well question it all, right? To be fair?

No. Because you would also have to question the families. The airport. The airline. The countless other airports the plane flew by and eye witnesses. Hell Seth McFarland was supposed to be on one of those flights. He had a ticket. Is he lying too

baaa

I am asking a question... I SAW a plane hit the WTC, I saw it happen on tv. That plane took off, it did not land. UA is missing a plane. We are missing people on the plane. If you are going to make a plane disappear and all the people on it... why would you use a drone..why not use the plane?

I guess the answer would be: they don't have any pilots willing to kill themselves.

If you used a drone you could crash it, land the passenger plane somewhere else, kill the passengers and pretend it didn't exist. How the hell you cover that one up, I don't know.

that seems complicated... that is more likely than terrorists hijacking a plane? Lets not forget that the US was WARNED by Egypt, Israel, Germany, Pakistan, and many more that there was evidence OBL was going to hijack aircraft... so why would all those countries belive it too

It's not about complexity though. The evidence put forward (and not saying there isn't more to counter the argument) show that the alleged pilots could NOT have piloted 747's into the towers and definitely not crashed into the Pentagon.

The only options therefore are:

It was a different plane.

It was a different pilot.

If it was a different plane then the US government has to be involved and the passengers have to have been bumped off or detained somewhere. There is evidence to support this theory.

If it was a different pilot then said pilot has to have had extensive training and have to have reason to kill himself. As yet there is no evidence to support this theory.

Of course it could be something different altogether.

Why couldn't they fly into the WTC? That B25 managed to do it

Well according to the video (which has sources, up to you if you trust them), aeroplanes have a max speed at which they can fly, that maximum drastically reduces the lower your altitude, all basic physics.

When you go over the max speed (called a VMO) the wings begin to wobble making the plane very difficult to fly straight, if you keep going over they will fracture and snap off, the body of the plane does the same thing. There are some great videos of aircraft going over their VMO's.

So basically they where going too fast to be 747's.

However the video did not offer up a source that explained how fast it would be going for the wings to shear off. So it does not prove that the wings may not simply have been wobbling as the plane crashed. At the speeds recorded though the experts in the video claim the feat to be impossible.

The second piece of evidence is the flight path. At those speeds flying a plane is very difficult (even more so with wings fluctuating), yet the completely novice pilots managed to perform some outstanding manoeuvres.

The most impressive being the Pentagon. Somehow the plane was flown around in a 360 loop at very high speed then ploughed into a tiny cement wall at ground level. Which means not only did a novice pilot managed to perform a perfect spiral downward at speed, he realigned perfectly, and at 500mph fly at street level into the exact piece of wall he needed to hit.

Again, I am not stupid enough to claim it as impossible, but there is some serious evidence there to suggest something else is at play. (If you believe the pilots, air traffic controllers and Boeing)

There is evidence the US government issued the passports to the terrorists.. But planes did hit the WTC. It is perfectly possible for them too do so. Like I don't get what you are trying to say. You turn the plane toward a building and fly into it. The B25 managed to do it. It just makes so much more sense that a few planes were hijacked and crashed than a few planes made to disappear and replaced with drones that are the same size and shape of the aircraft. You are making the conspiracy too compliacted

The B25 is a different type of plane. In the same way I cannot make a Cessna hit Mach 1 (it would fall apart), you cannot make a 747's fly at 500 knots at that altitude.

Just because something makes more sense, doesn't make it more true.

yes you can

https://www.google.com/search?q=747+top+speed&amp;oq=747+top+s&amp;aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.2809j0j7&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;espv=210&amp;es_sm=93&amp;ie=UTF-8

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/747family/pf/pf_400_prod.page

That is for cruising speed though, at 35,000 feet. The air is much thinner, it's like the difference between running in water and in air.

If you try that at ground level the air is MUCH thicker and will destroy the plane.

show me a cite of the speed of a 747 at the height of the WTC. I want an actual cite from someone with areonautics not a conspiracy site

Why cant you people just watch the video?

PART 3 - THE AIRPLANES

1.26:50 - Passenger planes or military drones?
1.28:20 - Impossible speeds
1.37:30 - What happened to the passengers?
1.38:35 - The cellphone calls
1.48:30 - The debunkers' position
1.50:38 - If not from the planes, from where?

http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&amp;artid=167

I am asking a question...

no, you're shilling as usual. nevermind i will play along, since i'm bored right now

UA is missing a plane.

are they? really?

We are missing people on the plane.

"missing people" yes, or names, at least. as for "on the plane" do you have any evidence of that? beyond one or two sample cases.

If you are going to make a plane disappear and all the people on it... why would you use a drone..why not use the plane?

i know why. if your interested enough and have the time you can also know why.

so you don't think a plane hit the wtc?

fuck off shill

Is this a plane?

http://plane2.0catch.com/_webimages/2087.jpg

For the record I do think our government had stuff to do with 9/11, but more like them issuing the passports. Planes were clearly hijacked

I think that my fellow conspiracy theorists muddy the water with claims of holograms or remote controlled drones, etc. They might be deliberatly trying to discredit the 9-11 truth movement.

I agree that they were legit airline planes that were, indeed, hijacked. I think one of the first points this video makes is the best. Where were the fighter get to shoot them down? Do they expect me to believe that the US military (biggest in the world by far) can't handle a couple of rogue passenger jets with no weapons? Right there shows that the "Government is to blame". Benefit of the doubt, maybe they didn't know about it before hand, maybe it wasn't devious on their part. But they certainly didn't do a damn thing to mitigate the death and destruction.

First warning. Rule 10.

it was worth it

[deleted]

[deleted]

He means the carefully framed ambiguities that his belief bias reinforces as "proof".

da da da da daaaaaa I'm not listeningggggggg

Something I've been wondering about, what would have happened to buildings 1 and 2 if the attacks had not occurred? The port authority lost a ten year legal battle trying to get the insurance companies to pay for asbestos removal, before Larry S. took it off their hands. If Silverstein doesn't pony up the billions for cleanup, would the buildings have become condemned?

Not likely. If these attacks hadn't been planned, I imagine Silverstein wouldn't have taken over the lease in the first place, and the tax payers would have had to foot the bill.

Silverstein couldn't have managed the takeover/privatization without the somewhat hidden hand help of Henry Kissinger and the head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank who directed the Blackstone Group to facilitate his finances.

Makes sense, it's the most well orchestrated inside job ever, I'm sure it goes all the way to the top. My point was just that had there been no plan, he would have never even tried to get the towers in the first place. Of all of them, he's the worst to me, with his crocodile tears and bullshit anecdotes about his blessed wife and how lucky he was and how he felt so bad about all the victims. It raises the bile into my throat.

Larry Silverstein.. hes a radical muslim, right?

Larry Silverstein.. hes a radical muslim, right?

so that's like, some sort of joke or something, I suppose. I get it. radical Muslims did 911, so Silverstein must be one? Is that about right?

its possible the planes that hit the buildings were drones, or, they were being remotely flown

[deleted]

Two planes flight paths crossed over a military base. If there were real planes and real passengers they could have been swapped out at the military base.

Kidnapped and murdered quite possibly. Not like these people seem to have a problem with mass murder so not really a far fetched idea.

[deleted]

Probably because a typical commercial airliner doesn't have the capacity for being remote control flown so they were replaced with planes that can can be.

Okay...

I'm just providing a reasonable logical explanation. I'm not saying 100% for certain what EXACTLY happened. However one things for sure, 9/11 was an inside job and building 7 is a smoking gun as it is irrefutable evidence.

Of course they can be flown remotely, autopilot them into the buildings. Why they weren't I don't know, like the video says its much easier to do that than risk all the complex moves some did

Because you can not fly planes in buildings at this low altitude on auto pilot. The planes have a warning system which will pull up the plane when you fly to low.

Oh yes I remember that now from the video, sorry about that

Destroy evidence.

... k

You don't think a shredder or an incinerator would be a better more foolproof way of destroying evidence? Because I do.

It's likely that this was the case, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the question.

did you even read the comment i responded to?

Something I've been wondering about, what would have happened to buildings 1 and 2 if the attacks had not occurred? The port authority lost a ten year legal battle trying to get the insurance companies to pay for asbestos removal, before Larry S. took it off their hands. If Silverstein doesn't pony up the billions for cleanup, would the buildings have become condemned?

Maybe you meant to respond to a different one?

if the attacks had not occurred?

ah, i interpreted it wrong

No worries. Like I said, I think you're on the right track.

mhmm

i meant about remote drones. Don't make it weird.

Just adding this since I didn't see it mentioned:

Rumsfeld admits that the plane over pennsylvania was actually shot down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0

That doesn't seem like very strong evidence to me... more seems like he misspoke.

I take it in that he misspoke and told the truth, instead of whatever BS he had cooked up in his head. A Freudian slip or something...?

Outstanding post!

For an event that changed society so drastically, that excuse never "did it" in the first place.

There are plenty of shorter docs out there. I think it's important that we have at least one exhaustive one that will look at every issue. I'm glad it's one as professionally made as this one too.

this only scratches the surface really but it sticks to the least controversial and most supported points which is why its a shills worst nightmare.

The video might be a worthy summary of a position, but it's not conducive to debate. If you watch a debate, they don't let somebody talk for 6 hours, followed by a 6-hour rebuttal. If anything, dropping a post of 100 assertions stifles debate rather than encourages it. Look up the "Gish Gallop" for more information on the tactic.

On a forum like Reddit, the topics are better parsed individually. There's no way to debate all of 9/11 all at once.

So space it out. One aspect per week or every few days. That would give most people an opportunity to watch the specific part and contribute to a discussion offering real points and counterpoints.

This comment should be the top comment in this thread.

While you make a very good point, most of the people here already have been exposed to these 'arguments' many times in the past 13yrs and have heard both sides.

This guy is just breaking it down even more, but IMO 6 hrs is a bit too much. If some of the shorter films about this don't get you thinking, nothing will

This is what the internet has needed since this video was released last September.

Well done.

Is this an actual DVD or what? Where can I find it?

Here's a link to it at Amazon.

I appreciate the post too but the top comment is still a rebuttal without any actual evidence :/

So you admit to attention deficit disorder.

I went to buy you so much gold but I'm on Bacon Reader and can't.

I have only watched the first 1/3 so far, but the most intriguing part is the speed of the aircraft. Boeing, pilots and air-traffic controllers all saying it's impossible for a plane to hit those speeds and not break apart or crash.

Then there is the bizzare crash into the side of the Pentagon which I had not thought about at all, why on Earth would you plough into a tiny strip of highly reinforced building when there is a bigger, easier and more destructive target 30ft higher?

Is it possible to get a a complete list of the piercing questions posed at the end of each section? These are some of the most bulletproof inquiries I've seen.

Thanks I've been meaning to try to find it or type it out if I couldn't because I think it'd be a good thing to spread through the internet.

OP better deliver.

Piss-poor student pilots"

The flight manoeuvres executed by the hijackers - all amateur Pilots were near on impossible. Hani Hanjur's miraculous decent alone beggars belief.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Did they ever release all the security camera footage they confiscated around the Pentagon shortly afterwards?

The FOIA request for the gathered security footage was specific to footage that showed the impact of Flight 77. The FBI reviewed all 80 85 videos it had and determined that only one of them showed the plane. The FBI thus disclosed only one video.

Now, people claim the FBI is lying about how many videos showed the plane. And maybe they are. But the way to prove that is easy: a broader FOIA request for all of the 85 videos gathered and analyzed, not just the ones that showed the plane.

I cannot think of a reason why conspiracy theorist groups have not made the broader request except for the possibility that they value being able to point to the "unknowns" about the other 84 videos.

When you take a moment to think about it, by the way, it makes sense that the vast majority of security cameras would not capture an incoming plane. Security cameras are not often (1) aimed at the sky or (2) aimed inwardly towards buildings, and, even if a camera did theoretically have a vantage point to catch the plane's movement or impact, most cameras (especially in 2001) were not (3) suited to capturing something moving 500 mph.

EDIT: my memory was a little off on this. Fixed my numbers. Source: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/FBI_hides_84_Pentagon_videos

I should also note that the FBI claims most of the videos in that 85 were not even from the pentagon or its immediate vicinity. Many pertained to other parts of the FBI's 9-11 investigation and, as such, included video of the WTC and searches of locations linked to the suspected hijackers.

[deleted]

Well, as /u/TheChris916 points out, the video the FBI released actually contains two vantage points of the impact, not just one.

In any case, if you believe the FBI is lying about any of the other video, there is nothing stopping you from submitting a FOIA request for it. I remain very skeptical that there would be many cameras that could have captured it. While it did approach ground level, that was only for a few fleeting seconds after it came down over the highway. And it does not appear to me that it crossed over any parking lots, just a grass field and a small road.

[deleted]

there's nothing stopping me from submitting a FOIA. Aside, of course, from the fact that everyone else that has ever submitted a FOIA request for more security footage from the Pentagon has received the same excuses and been denied.

This is where you are wrong. I have seen zero evidence that any FOIA request for those videos was denied. If such a request were denied, then there would have to be an official denial letter stating why. That letter's decision would be appealable, first administratively and then, second, in federal court. But there is no such letter because it seems no one bothered to actually request all the videos.

Again, the original FOIA request in question here was only for footage showing the impact of flight 77. You can see the text of this request displayed in the OP's video during the discussion of the pentagon videos. Pause the video 17:28 and read the text of the actual request. Under the FOIA, the requestor controls the scope of their request, not the requestee. They didn't get all the videos because of their narrowly worded request. That doesn't mean the videos are unobtainable; it just means they were not requested.

As to why they didn't point the cameras in the air? I don't believe anyone in the pentagon knew Flight 77 was going to hit the pentagon. And, even if they somehow could have guessed that, they almost certainly could not predict its angle of attack. Heck, they didn't even evacuate the section that was hit. Who's response to thinking a hijacked plane might hit your building would be, "ok, turn all the cameras to the sky so we can maybe record it hitting," anyhow?

there is nothing stopping you from submitting a FOIA request for it.

this is just like saying, filling out a petition on that wethepeople shit will get a real response

FOIA will be denied, as it has in the past... when thinks do come out, it's crazy stuff

like: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy

There is no evidence I have seen that anyone actually requested the videos and was denied them. Why don't you file a request and get a denial, then? You can appeal denials administratively and ultimately to federal courts, but, even if you didn't appeal, you'd have a much stronger argument about FBI malfeasance then, "well, we assume they won't give them to us, so we won't bother asking."

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it two videos released? I'm on mobile so I can't link it, but I watched a video posted on Reddit not too long ago. It showed security footage from the security gate entering the parking lot (I think?), in addition to another camera from a different location at the same check gate. The video went on to prove the angle of the two cameras was off and concluded the videos were edited, but the point I'm trying to make is there was more than one camera view.

I am not familiar with any other FOIA request for videos other than the one to which the Maguire Declaration responds. But I was a bit off on my numbers re the number of videos the FBI reviewed (there were 85, not 80). I have updated my post above accordingly and provided a link to info about the Maguire Declaration.

EDIT: I reviewed the claims in the OP's video and the Maguire Declaration more closely and can provide a more satisfying response. The Maguire Declaration often counts multiple videos from the same video system as a single video. In the case of the two camera views that are in the OP video, both of them were disclosed as the "one video" provided by the FBI in response to the FOIA request. You can see this as the last entry on the video list attached to the declaration: 1A-1A95013 One (1) CD-ROM Images capture the impact of the plane into the Pentagon from two different cameras.

Awesome, thank you for your research on this matter.

The FBI reviewed all 80 85 videos it had and determined that only one of them showed the plane. The FBI thus disclosed only one video.

Ah well, then I guess case closed right?

Ah well, then I guess case closed right?

Not necessarily. As I've told several posters, the FBI's determination re that video being the only one of the 85 to show the impact is not dispositive of what the other videos actually show. If you doubt the FBI's determination, however, the most sensible thing to do would be to request the other videos.

I often see these concerns about these videos come up with a subtext that the FBI is withholding them, but that is not how FOIA requests work. In this case, the request was very narrowly worded (see OP's video at 17:28 for the text of the request). Once the FBI determined that only one video showed impact, per the wording of that request, that was the only one they were able to disclose. To understand why, imagine FOIA responses in a world where the government agencies could bury requestors in troves of irrelevant documents. We don't want that, so we give the requestor the power (subject to certain enumerated exemptions) to control the scope of his or her own request. Here, the scope was very narrow.

Now that the FBI has provided its description of the other videos, however, it would be almost trivial to request and obtain them with a broader FOIA. So it's puzzling to me that those who believe the FBI is lying have not done so, given that they believe those other videos would show to the world that the FBI is lying. That those who doubt the FBI's claims have not requested the videos does not mean the FBI is being truthful, but it certainly precludes them from arguing the FBI is withholding the videos.

[deleted]

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

No, the only footage released was doctored as well (as the video points out).

No, they have not.

Edit: what's with the downvotes? They haven't released the videos...

Genuine question: Why didn't anyone come forward to say they didn't see a Plane do you mean?

When you don't see something it's hard to be sure you should have seen something. Some people have come forward saying they saw a jet fly towards pentagon and then just flew over it though.

The meteor fell down in the average Russian town and internet is full of videos. Plane fell onto the Pentagon in the capital of US? no video.

Almost nobody had cell phones with cameras in 2001, let alone video.

But security cameras would be surrounded at the Pentagon like crazy.

cell phones

I don't think phone cameras are the only type of cameras which was present in Washington of 2001.

Right, but I'm just saying that the number of cameras present on a Tuesday morning in 2001 was far less than it would be today. Also, a plane moves extremely fast: if you didn't have your camera out and recording already, you would have missed it.

I've lived near airport and couple of times planes started to sound funny (at least to my ear). Sometimes, then sound was really strange I've been able to get my camera and run outside to take the picture of the plane (everything was fine all this times). Just saying. Also some paparazzi should be in Washington on duty. Tourists maybe? I know, cameras were harder to come by back then but complete lack of amateur photo/video bothers me.

But cell phone cameras are the only ones readily available to a large percentage of people. Before cell phone cameras you had to hope that someone happened to have a camera with them.

Its too obvious for most people to understand. They like the story better then the truth. Are most people flawed with this type of thinking?

"You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it. " -Morpheus

Yes. To accept the truth here means to re-think everything you believe to be true. Most folks simply can't manage that. Their brains go into self-preservation mode [willful ignorance/denial]. Sort of like climate change facts. We'll all be dead in 50 years but not many people accept that reality either.

Lol no, it is nothing like climate change facts. And what are those facts exactly? Predicting future climate patterns with our tiny sample size of maybe a couple decades is nothing like trying to piece together a single "terrorist" act.

latest studies show that 95% of computer climate models are/were seriously flawed. Arctic ice is 50% thicker than last year. Polar bear and caribou populations bigger and healthier than ever. Martian polar caps have been melting for 3 years, which can only be caused by solar activity. The Chicken Little crowd is laughable. The Earth is a complicated, powerful thing that has undergone tremendous climate changes over the eons without human influence (the Ice Ages and subsequent melting is just one of many examples).

Sources?

Fox news?

Koch brothers?

Imagination land?

it's called the interwebs

Earth big, me brain tiny, Earth unable to be hurt by fleshy sack of meat. Urgh!

Uh...

Well, that's technically accurate. Climate change isn't going to destroy the Earth. There will probably be some new and awesome adaptations, in fact...just nobody will be around to see it. Just another aspect of the Earth's 'immune system,' I suppose.

You know anthropogenic climate change isn't just an increase in temperature, like you said the Earth has complex weather patterns and is very big, changing the climate doesn't just affect temperature alone, it affects climate patterns as a whole, i.e. floods and droughts where the exact opposite is usual.

'the sky is falling'

Why do you call it a miraculous decent? It wasn't a hard maneuver to perform...just really dangerous. All he did was fly down and to the left.

Wrong. It was a tightly descending corkscrew turn at max speed, finally reaching an incredible airspeed of over 500 mph running just meters off the ground before striking the Pentagon. The NTSB flight data has been released and is public.

Pilots with a lifetime of experience flying commercial planes have taken the official NTSB flight path and tried to recreate the maneuver, at the same speed, in flight simulators. The really good pilots can recreate it after a few tries. Poor pilots cannot recreate it at all.

The air traffic controllers on duty that day thought that Flight 77 was a military jet because they had never in their lives seen a commercial airliner flown like that.

And the most incredible thing of all is that Flight 77 was pointed right at the Pentagon before the amazing turn. He could have just nosed down and plowed into the place, doing incredible damage. But instead, did a highly advanced, highly risky turn to come around and hit the place in the side. The one side that happened to be fortified and half empty. Now that just seems like it's from a fairy tale to me, but it's the official story.

Wrong. It was a tightly descending corkscrew turn at max speed

Yeah - down and to the left. That's what I said in less fancy words. I don't really get why you say I'm wrong here.

The air traffic controllers on duty that day thought that Flight 77 was a military jet because they had never in their lives seen a commercial airliner flown like that.

I've seen this argument before, but actually the air traffic controller who made the comment goes on to say that it's because commercial airliners wouldn't fly so unsafely - not that commercial airliners can't do it, they just wouldn't normally, so they assumed it was military.

But that's not even a very telling statement - how many US traffic controllers would have had experience dealing with a hijacked 747? I'm betting none in the room at that time, so obviously they would have never seen a 747 performing such unnecessary, dangerous maneuvers before.

I said wrong in reference to the claim that it was an easy maneuver. Commercial pilots would disagree. They would tell you that's it not impossible, but risky and difficult. In particular, they would tell you that it would be difficult to actually hit the Pentagon from such a maneuver, because the high speeds make it very unforgiving so that if you don't execute the turn perfectly, you end up either flying over the Pentagon or plowing the ground.

The official 9/11 story tells us that a man, only trained on small planes and with maybe a bit of simulator time on big planes, a man who had failed out of flight schools, a man who could barely speak or read English, a man who was called a "bad pilot," stepped into the cockpit of a 767 for the first time his life, and pulled off something that experienced pilots would not dream of doing, all instead of just simply crashing the plane normally?

That sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory.

They would tell you that's it not impossible, but risky and difficult

I've heard "risky" before, but I've yet to actually find any evidence coming from reputable sources that this was a particularly difficult move to perform. Do you have any source on this other than the misquoted air traffic controller?

Not calling bullshit, I just can't seem to find a whole lot other than that misquote. Googling this stuff can be really difficult if you don't already have an idea of the quote your looking for.

Philip Marshall (deceased) was a commercial pilot who is one source who said it took him 5 tries in a simulator to hit the Pentagon. His book.

The documentary in question also has many other pilots giving their opinions to the nature of the flight: http://youtu.be/O1GCeuSr3Mk?t=1h3m5s

You can't watch that section without scratching your head. The danger one gets into here is that we have no idea what's fake and what's real. The hole in the Pentagon was real. Eyewitness saw "a plane" so there was probably "a plane" involved, but many other aspects could have easily been faked. Maybe the NTSB data is all bullshit? Who knows.

The definitive records would have been the flight data recorders. But those were conveniently "destroyed" in the crash.

The author of the documentary, later on, subscribes to a "plane swap" theory, where somewhere along the line, in all the confusion, the commercial planes were swapped with military decoys or even drones. This answers all the "problems" with the official story, but multiplies the number of people who would have had to be "in" on the conspiracy.

Philip Marshall's theory was that the hijackers had secret training on 757s from the CIA at an airbase in Arizona, and were actually well trained to do the maneuvers they did. They were not trained on landing or take offs so people still thought they were bad pilots. I tend to like this a bit better because it means a much smaller conspiracy.

Either way, the official story is just not believable. What I have never seen is some debunker dragging a commercial pilot into a simulator to show how easy it is. I've looked for it, and this simply does not exist to my knowledge.

You seem to be lacking some understanding of avionics. This is a matter of potential and kinetic energy. The plane was at a high altitude (potential energy) and had passed the point of doing a simple negative angle decent directly towards the pentagon. When you have high kinetic energy (airspeed) and high potential energy (altitude) its hard to just turn and go directly at something that you have already passed. This is hard because the second you start to nose-down you are going to tap into that potential energy(altitude) and it will start bleeding off into kinetic energy (airspeed). Now the angle that was supposedly done by the dudes with box cutters leaves basically zero room for error in the angle and decent path that the plane took. Otherwise the plane could would have ripped apart or simply put, missed the target.

What I don't understand is why the U.S government didn't just say that these hijackers were expert pilots or had super terrorist training, as that would seem an easy way to shill away these claims, at least to the people drinking the koolade. There are just parts of the official story that seem like they didn't even try to make the it believable.

"Hard" seems like a relative term here with no real base for context. It's may be harder to turn so sharply when you are descending then if you weren't descending, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily "hard" in the eyes of a professional, or amateur pilot.

Hell, it could have been pushing the plane to the brink of tearing apart...I still don't know if that necessarily would mean that it's a difficult thing for the pilot to perform.

I'd really like to see a professional pilot saying that it's difficult to do, and not just safely.

You already have that data in that no pilot that tried the simulation did it on the first try, those are real pilots with many more years of experience on those aircraft than the hijackers had available.

Unfortunately I'm at work and can't watch the video for it again right now to refresh my memory

But are we sure these were professional pilots? How many was there that tried this? Was the simulation actually accurate?

From every account of this simulation I've heard, the entire thing was unscientific and flubbed - assuming variables and factors that weren't necessarily the case, and basically just botching the experiment.

Can this be a new thing? "Down and to the left, down and to the left".

Why do I seem to recall abraxas being involved with the cia?

http://google.com/search?q=abraxas+cia #WeDoNotForget

My name is after the Abraxas computer virus (also known as "Abraxas5"), not whateverthefuck corporation.

Yah it's totally impossible aiming a jumbo jet at high speeds.

If a pilot can fly full speed feet from the ground directly in the center of a crowd of people. You think aiming for a target 1000s of feet tall and 100s of feet wide is such a precise maneuver? Lmao.

This is a must see for every American.

This is a must see for the world.

To me an interesting section is the "If not from the plane, then from where?".

Shit, that gave me the bumps.

"It's a frame."

That whole scenario blew my mind. She also started the message with "I need to you listen to me very carefully," and ended it with those three powerful words.

I couldn't sleep the night after watching that part. I admit this part of the film scared the shit out of me.

I personally thought the altering of Norman Minetta's testimony was one of the most damning facts pointed out.

The only reason they didn't quote him direclty is so they could paraphrase him and alter the content of his testimony. This man was in one of the highest positions on that day and his testimony shouldn't just be paraphrased.

that or the black woman in the background saying "its a frame"

The cell phone thing to me is the biggest red flag. That and the VMO of the plane was met way more than once and never once had its structure ripped a part.

Planes we saw imo had to be beefed up drones with reinforced outer hulls.

I thought it was absolutely chilling. Her name was CeeCee Lyles, and she and her husband both had backgrounds in law enforcement. "It's a frame"?? That phrase, spoken between cops, would have instant meaning and context.

Exactly. I listened to that audio replaying for at least 5 minutes just non stop laughing.. Because for me that was the icing on the cake. That coupled with the VMO met the passengers were never on the plane in the first place. Where did they go?

My opinion..bullet to the head and buried underneath gitmo

Probably the people in the 'Family Centers' exposed by Jesse Ventura. Another must-see for American truth seekers and anyone who thinks Governments exist for the people. For some reason this episode was banned... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_nlPgo6iKo

While it did scare me the way it was presented, I think we're seeing a bit of confirmation bias here. If I heard that myself without prior knowledge of what she might be saying, I would've thought that it was nothing at all.

Also, is the statement "It's a frame" instantly recognized as "it's a cover-up/it's fake/etc." in America? I'm asking an honest question here. Mainly because in my country if somebody said that, we'd have to ask them to clarify. "It's a frame" would mean it's either a picture frame or door frame, even between police/lawyers.

Yes it's an instantly recognizable meaning in America.

Perhaps americans are subjected to more police dramas than average. Almost certainly, actually. To "frame" someone is to commit a crime and cause another to fall under suspicion, a misdirection. For whatever reason, it is a recognizable term

I think we're seeing a bit of confirmation bias here. If I heard that myself without prior knowledge of what she might be saying, I would've thought that it was nothing at all.

They deliberately play it several times without telling you what to hear, so as to avoid this.

Really? Think logically about this for a moment. Those people called their families right before they were going to die. In some cases they left a message, in other cases the families spoke with their family member on the plane for the last time. They had their last conversation together, etc....

Are you telling me that you believe that either (1) the people who made the calls were lying to their families right before they died? or that (2) someone somehow got a bunch of voice doubles of flight passengers to call their family members to talk to them for the last time?

As I understand it, cell phone calls in the air at that time would have had limitations on their connectivity, but independent analysis has showed that the calls were possible. But more than that, to believe that the calls did not happen just requires you to completely strain all sense of logic about those people speaking with their loved ones for the last time.

I guess it's impossible for a suicide bomber to believe that their family will be well compensated after they've accomplished their mission?

Did you watch the cellphone portion? It's pretty unnerving to hear some of these conversations. Why would the hijackers tell the passengers anything about what their plans were. One women specifically says that they're talking about crashing into the world trade center. It just doesn't pass a straight faced test. The cellphone connections themselves don't make any sense either.

Where is the cellphone triangulation from the tower telemetry? In 2001 it was very common to loose connection jumping from one tower to the next on a highway, I'd be interested to hear how it's explained it worked so well for these planes flying at speeds over 400mph.

I agree. There's simply no way cell phones could work with more than a few seconds if at all..

Independent analysis? I would love to see a link to this.

Sure:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Cellphone_calls_faked

http://books.google.com/books?id=3C7JSfnMsbIC&amp;q=cell+phones#v=snippet&amp;q=cell%20phones&amp;f=false

Amazing that a mint condition passport can be found from the plane, but if there were working airphones on the aircraft is impossible to verify?

Umm... I'm addressing the issues discussed in the videos. It makes zero sense to assume that these people didn't talk to their family members. You are focused on the supposed lack of likelihood that the calls could be made. But you're ignoring the most simple fact that the actual people whose family members died aren't just going to lie about having talked to them for the last time. And I mean, we have recordings of some of those people who were on the planes. You're ignoring strong evidence that doesn't suit your narrative.

I think the implication is those people where forced to talk to their families. The evidence being the total lack of engine noises, the phone call lasting for an hour after the plane crashed and the impossibility of all those calls going though with no poor signal and no cutting out.

And my point is that this implication is totally ridiculous. People who believe that have seen too many movies.

More than this though, I think a lot of truthers don't think about obvious holes in their stories like these. They come up with a conspiracy with holes in it and then when people point out the holes they come up with arguments to fill the holes that are outrageous.

The irony is that they believe that the official story is outrageously flawed but that they come up with alternative explanations that are at least equally questionable, if not more questionable than the official story.

The implication does sound extraordinary, which is why I think we should draw conclusions based on the evidence rather than jump to conclusions and fill in the gaps from there.

That comes off pretty rude, yo.

What the heck? I'm not attacking you, I even agree that the US was involved... I was hoping to make it clear to you that you're not winning allies with your callousness, but clearly I not only failed, but gave you this opportunity to appear like even more of an ass.

Geez, get off your persecution high horse.

[deleted]

[deleted]