Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the problem David. You take the evidence that agrees with your POV and disregard any that doesn't.
|
Be more specific. I find that molten metal falling out of the tower seconds before the collapse pretty significant. I don't see how you guys can take it so lightly. The evidence you present has multiple explanations. You guys have a foregone conclusion and you avoid what doesn't fit it.
Quote:
|
ALL these claims seem to make sense. (Invite DavidC to read the Moon Hoax pages on Bad Astronmy where the BA clearly says these things SEEM to make sense until you study the Factors involved (e.g. lighting- reflective surfaces etc)
|
You're presuming the moon hoax theory has been debunked. It hasn't been debunked any more than the inside job theory has been debunked. I've seen the videos that are off-line now and I asked the pro-Apollo people for explanations of the evidence offered in them. They did the same thing they're doing here--give lame explanations with a patronizing and then just consider it to be debunked.
Quote:
|
What is your basis that the flights would've been intercepted?
|
I read articles like this one.
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation just 10 miles from the Pentagon.
On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C. They failed to do their job. Despite over one hour's advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single Andrews fighter took off (or scrambled) to protect the city.
The FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative procedures by which fighter jets intercept commercial aircraft under emergency conditions. These procedures were not followed.
Air Force officials and others have tried to explain away the failures:
"Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, another Pentagon spokesman, [said]: 'The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way, and I doubt prior to Tuesday's event, anyone would have expected anything like that here.'"
--'Newsday,' 23 September 2001 (1)
Using information from the mass media and official Websites, we will show that this is a lie.
Some of what happened on 9-11, such as planes flying into buildings, is unusual. But most of what happened, such as commercial jets flying off-course, transponder failures and possible hijackings, are everyday emergencies. We will show that these emergencies are routinely handled with expert efficiency based on clear rules.
The crash of the first hijacked jet into the World Trade Center made it clear the United States was faced with an extraordinary situation. This should have intensified the emergency responses of the air safety and air defense systems.
The whole country was aware. For example, at 9:06 AM the NY Police broadcast:
" 'This was a terrorist attack. Notify the Pentagon.'"
--'Daily News' (New York) 12 September 2001 (2)
'American Forces Press Service' reported that ordinary people working at the Pentagon worried they could be next:
"'We were watching the World Trade Center on the television,' said a Navy officer. 'When the second plane deliberately dove into the tower, someone said, 'The World Trade Center is one of the most recognizable symbols of America. We're sitting in a close second.'"
--'DEFENSELINK News', Sept. 13, 2001 (3)
U.S. air safety and air defense emergency systems are activated in response to problems every day. On 9-11 they failed despite, not because of, the extreme nature of the emergency. This could only happen if individuals in high positions worked in a coordinated way to make them fail.
Such operatives would almost surely have failed if they tried to disrupt and abort routine protection systems without top-level support. The failure of the emergency systems would be noticed immediately. Moreover, given the catastrophic nature of the attacks, the highest military authorities would be alerted. Acting on their own, the operatives could expect that their orders would be countermanded and that they themselves would be arrested.
The sabotage of routine protective systems, controlled by strict hierarchies, would never have been contemplated let alone attempted absent the involvement of the supreme U.S. military command. This includes at least U.S. President George Bush, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
|
The terrorists also gave bomb threats to the passengers.
|
It is possible for hijackers to make passengers think they have a bomb but the fact that the planes weren't intercepted is enough.
Quote:
|
You have yet to show how this planting operation could've been "very easy", not to mention unseen.
|
I was referring to stuff planted inside the building--not in front of it. Stuff could have been planted on the lawn after the crash in the cover of the smoke caused by the crash. If we don't have a continous video of the whole area starting at the time of the crash and going for several hours, this can't be proven one way or the other.
Quote:
And just who is it that makes claims of molten metal?
How do you know that it's not some other metal with a lower melting point?
How do you know that it's really solidified molten metal and not some other substance?
|
Tell me this--do you totally rule out the possibility of thermite? The molten metal was in the same place it would be if theremite was used. Also, what was the molten metal puring out of the tower just before the collapse?
Quote:
|
Yes, might have. But are you examining the mechanics of this conjecture?
|
The damage to the outside doesn't look like a wing hit it.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index2.htm
(fifth picture)
Quote:
|
The maker of 'Loose Change' was shown to be dishonest; he made the movie just to get attention.
|
Please go into some detail. I know how you guys "Show" things.
Quote:
|
No, it's because there is no evidence suggesting an inside job. On the other hand, the evidence does support the offical story, as you call it.
|
I call the molten metal pouring out of the tower seconds before the collapse pretty good evidence that thermite was used.
Quote:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...81047&q=9%2F11
At the 48 min. 45 sec. mark thermite is demostrated. At the 54 minute 18 second mark some liquid metal is shown pouring out of one of the towers. At the 56 minute 35 second mark Steven Jones gives his opinion of the molten metal pouring out of the towers. He said the NIST report explained it as possibly molten aluminum from the plane. They melted some aluminum and it never changed color. Steven Jones refuted the NIST report.
|
I call this picture of the front of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon which looks nothing like the front of a 757 serious evidence.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
(Upper right picture)
This alone is enough to declare the debate over. The fact that you guys don't recognize it is really irrelevant
Quote:
And it has nothing, nothing, absolutly nothing to do with what country the information is from. Got that?
That claim of yours is such a crock of feces.
|
I wasn't referring to info about 9/11 in foreign newspapers. Read some of the articles I posted on post # 29 of this page and you'll see what I'm referring to.
Noam Chomsky Says...
Quote:
Almost all of the conversations about those subjects I've heard in my seventeen years of living outside of the US have been based on the info in those articles. I've spoken to people from the countries dealt with in the articles and they say the same things the articles say.
I highly doubt that.
Seems more likely that you're just speaking to the conspiracy theory crowd, and not anyone that is educated in relevent fields of structural engineering.
|
See above post.
Quote:
Prior to the events of 9/11, (to the best of my understanding) US (and most other countries) procedure on hijacking was to cooperate with the hijackers, not fight them. Let them take control, stay alive, and wait for Delta Force or somebody deal with them AFTER the aircraft was landed some place. In general, 9/11 was about the first time, that I am aware of, where the hijackers actually took complete control of the flight controls and flew the plane instead of telling the pilots where to go.
The idea that the passengers and aircrew of an airliner would do something that violates [then] standing rules and would be considered inherently risky (fighting the hijackers) -- before it was burned into our psyche that letting hijackers take control of the aircraft could mean certain death -- is ludicrous.
|
If they thought they are going to land somewhere, they probably wouldn't fight if they thought the hijackers had a bomb. If they knew they were going to crash somewhere, they would fight and the hijackers would have a chance against a few hundred people if they only had knives. It is plausible thought that four psople could get control of a plane. It's quite implausible that four planes wouldn't be intercepted if they went as far off course as those four planes did.
Quote:
So the material was easily planted in advance? So pray tell, when did they (the conspiracy) get their hands on the passengers (who would all or mostly have to be confirmed as taking the flight) in sufficient time to kill them before transporting their bodies (or the remnants with crash-type injuries or burned beyond rcognition) to the Pentagon, all undetected by the security and other workers there. It would certainly be noteworthy of comment (and inspite of orders to be quiet) if an area was cordoned off especially if it was the side hit by the airliner. This does not even ask about the engine parts and such and the real possibility that a miss by even a few dozen feet (or worse, the aircraft actually crashing early and then bouncing or skidding into the building) would have a significant impact on the way that the stashed bodies (or body remnants) and smashed pieces of the airliner get distributed around the crash site in what experts could think was a suspicious pattern. Certainly, it not being implied that the parts and bodies were completely pre-positioned in the the places where they should have ended up or is that the implication intended?
If, OTOH, it was all loaded on a robot(controlled) aircraft, then where are all the parts and pieces (and there would be many) of that robot aircraft?
More to the point, if the alternative of using a robot aircraft is to be considered viable then your contention that the "smoke cloud" in the video image that you claim is definitive or irrefutable evidence of the true events can't possibly be a fighter class aircraft like an F4 or F111 or another aircraft like the Global Hawk, now can it?
|
I've dealt with all of this before. It's easy to plant big parts inside a building--nobody can see you because you're inside. It's easy to put stuff on a robot plane too. DNA evidence can be falsified. Reports of what is found can be falsified. Everything here has multiple explanations and is not serious evidence. Serious evidence is something like the molten metal pouring out of the tower seconds before the collapse or the picture I mentioned above of the nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon. You guys cling to the stuff with multiple explanations and ignore the stuff with few or no other explanations. You guys are not objective. You don't seem to realize how obvious this is.
Quote:
|
Actually they talk about 50 degrees...
|
I was talking about the angle from the perpendicular. That's 40 degrees if the angle from the wall is 50 degrees.
I drew a 40 degree line on this picture.
http://www.space.com/images/pentagon_damage_02.jpg
It agreed with the location of the hole in the fourth picture down here.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index1.htm
You state that the box is about five meters away from the camera in this proof you did.
http://www.flugplatzsiedlung.de/Pent_gate.pdf
Getting the correct distance of the box from the camera and the width of the box are pretty important in a proof like this. A small mistake in precision will throw the whole thing off. I want to see some more detail in how you got those numbers.
That's why I wanted to use the side of the Pentagon as the basis for the calculations--it's a lot clearer.
I've been advised that my post is too long so I have to di this in two posts. I'll continue in a second post.