I think what happens is that people will confuse some of the modern "boxcutters",with light,thin blades that extend thru the handle & are broken off as each section dulls,with the "Stanley knives" (as you Brits call 'em),which are also called construction knives in the US,the blades are thick & honed to a 30 deg angle,they're used to cut thru a variety of materials,thick carpet,rubber hose,electrical wire,small PVC pipe,thick leather,etc....
So they'll easily cut thru flesh,as Van Rijn's unfortunate experience shows.

don't feel bad VR,I've got a few scars myself

__________________
"An armed man is a citizen
An unarmed man is a subject"

Robert A. Heinlein

I wonder if this sudden shift in experience will lead to more of the "taking things into ones own hands" type of response from ordinary people. It scares me when I see reports of GP (genral public) accusing "men of middle eastern appearance" (I wonder how long 'til that becomes MOMEA?) of being terrorrists on flights, delaying, or canceling them while some poor man defends his existance. How long 'til someone decides to "save everybody" by just killing some random MOMEA after takeoff?

you make an EXCELLENT point and i think i LOT of people need to be More Aware of WHO was responsible
EXTREMIST TERRORISTS
if you start to catch yourself saying "MUSLIMS ran a plane into the World Trade Center"
try to stop yourself..
it wasn't muslims
it was EXTREMIST TERRORISTS and there is a Difference
that type of thinking cvan lead quickly to Vigilanteism and mild to sever persecution.

\No i am not a muslim before you ask..... :eyeroll:

A lot of folks have pointed out the difference between pre- and post-9/11 hijacking response protocols. No need to repeat.

But, what's this comment about intercepting the flights? Have you ever looked at a timeline for the 9/11 events? Do you know when the FAA first realized they had a hijacking? Do you know the protocols for handling such an event? Do you know the protocols for involving the military? Dop you know how many fighters are kept on ready alert status, and where? Do you have any idea how long it would take a fighter to reach one of the hijacked planes?

Or, are you just blowin' smoke?

And no one noticed all this "stuff" being brought into the building?

Also, your mystery plane has gone form F4 to F111 to "robot plane" big enough to carry "bodies, 757 plane parts, etc." Which is it?

Which is exactly what we've been doing. You have been presented with evidence that makes sense, that fits the observations and events. Yet, you keep running back to one, lousy (and I mean, of course, blurry) frame from a parking lot sercurity camera with a fish eye lens.

Steven Jones is a physicist who has tried his hand at structural engineering. The man doesn't even know the difference between stainless steel and structural steel. He has been refuted by his own university.

Steven Jones' opinion on 9/11 and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee.

Common sense doesn't always work in the technical world.

And, the official story adds up very nicely.

But you never explained how the Evil Gubmint could let such an obvious piece of evidence get past them.

Yeah, bascially. But, not because any of us will simply take the goverment's (any government's) word for what happened. We have looked at the evidence and the reports made concerning that evidence from qualified, independent sources.

The "official story" makes sense.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Ironic, considering his claims regarding the smoke cloud from the damaged engine.

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

Scottish comedian Bing Hitler, better known to you Americans as Craig Ferguson of the Late Late show, used to have a routine in the mid-80s (when all those flights were getting hijacked to the Lebanon) about Scottish planes having guns strapped under the seats; when the hijackers jumped up and said "take this plane to Beruit", the Scots would all produce semi-automatics and shout "f-off, take this f'in plane tae Benidorm"........

__________________
Okay, okay, Mr. Contractor...you can have an extension of time under clause 25 but forget the consequent direct loss and expense under clause 26 - I mean, hell, I thought it was obvious that the foundations went under the walls but there you go.....

...now, I need a clause 13A quote for C4 coated rebar, please.

Heh, Scottish Tourist Terrorists

__________________
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

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.

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.

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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is possible for hijackers to make passengers think they have a bomb but the fact that the planes weren't intercepted is enough.

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.

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?

The damage to the outside doesn't look like a wing hit it.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index2.htm
(fifth picture)

Please go into some detail. I know how you guys "Show" things.

I call the molten metal pouring out of the tower seconds before the collapse pretty good evidence that thermite was used.
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

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...

See above post.

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.


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.

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.

Continuation of last post

A lot of non-American newspapers are controlled by the same group that controls American newpapers. Take a look at this.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ru...rbergClub.html
I was referring to info you get by talking to people from third world contries. They give a very different analysis of what's happening from mainstream newspapers.
Sites like these give the same analyses of events and situations in the countries that the people from the coutries give.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com
http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm

If you base your opinions on what mainstream newspapers say, it seems inconceivable that the US government could plan and carry out 9/11. If you read stuff from those two site above, it doesn't seem so inconceivable.
Here's some other good stuff that helps put everything into perspective.
http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ...propaganda.htm
http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ...atingenemy.htm
http://video.google.es/videoplay?doc...q=terror+storm

This is from post 935
I used it to answer a question--not change the subject.

Why are you so sure?

As I've said before. Bodies could have been put in the robot plane very easily. The DNA report could have been falsified. To be sure whether or not stuff was planted we would need a continuous video of the area lasting several hours starting at the time of the crash. Without that it can't be proven either way.

Start watching this at the 48 minute mark until the part where the molten metal pours out of the towers just before the collapse.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...81047&q=9%2F11
An objective person would give a lot of importance to this. I want to hear your explanations for this. As far as I'm concerned this is another one of the many pieces of proof that closes the whole case.

David C STOP!

Answer this please!

Wouldn't it be easier to just hijack the planes and fly them into buildings?


All this stuff you are posting would be way more difficult to do than to just take over a few planes. Why can you not see this?

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

David,
Andrews is NOT an air defense base, it is not a NORAD base, it has no dedicated fighter squadrons. There were 4, Four, armed alert fighters, and 4 pilots, ready to respond to air defense situations in the entire northeast US that morning. Bringing additional armed aircraft on line takes some time, not just minutes.

Why do you keep bringing up this totally IGNORANT NORAD standdown claim, made by completely unknowledgable sources? ....and you just lap it all up like mother's milk.

Uh, and the NYPD doesn't call NORAD to scramble fighters.

I was referring to info you get by talking to people from third world contries. They give a very different analysis of what's happening from mainstream newspapers.
Some people of third world countries believe that raping a virgin can cure AIDS... Come on. You can't be serious...

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

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.
Exept for those people that work inside...

BTW. Is it a F4 or F111? If yes, your robot plane goes down the drain, if not,
how does the big nose of your robot plane suddenly fit into your picture?

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

I know this is a bit off topic, but...

Oh please.
It's even easier to debunk the Moon Hoax than the 9/11 theories, IMO.

You show here that you'd rather believe a video by someone who is unqualified/misinformed/seeking attention simply because it either "makes more sense" or that it fits your view of things.

I can only conclude that you hold an anti-US view, and thus are willing to believe any "alternative explaination" that support this view.
Hardly objective.

The way I see it, if the evidence doesn't fit, then it's not a plausible alternative.
The difference between you and me (and several others on the board) is that what we see as evidence is different from your view.
Your claim of the white object that you claim to be a fighter plane is a good example of this thinking.

Here's advice you keep ignoring: Occam's Razor. Learn it, use it.

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

And again, saying, "It could have been done" is not enough. How could it have been done? Be specific.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

This was on Overheard in New York the other day and it just seems to fit so perfectly into a number of threads going on now... I know it's a bit off topic, but it just fits.

Southern tourist: Is this Roosevelt Island?
NY woman: No, this is Roosevelt Avenue, in Queens.
Southern tourist: What? So it is Roosevelt Island?
NY woman: No, I said it is not Roosevelt Island. This is the Roosevelt Avenue stop. You are in Queens.
Southern tourist: I don't understand, am I on Roosevelt Island?
Suit: Ma'am, you are in Queens right now, specifically, Roosevelt Avenue. Roosevelt Avenue is not the same as Roosevelt Island. If you want to be at Roosevelt Island, you have to take the train going in the other direction about three stops. Either way, get off the damn train and quit delaying the rest of us.
Southern tourist: Why won't anybody answer my question?
NY woman: You know what? This is Roosevelt Island, we're all wrong. Get off.
Southern tourist: Was that so hard?

--Roosevelt Avenue stop, F train

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

Start watching this at the 48 minute mark until the part where the molten metal pours out of the towers just before the collapse.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...81047&q=9%2F11
An objective person would give a lot of importance to this. I want to hear your explanations for this. As far as I'm concerned this is another one of the many pieces of proof that closes the whole case.
David, even if it was the case that the stuff falling of the tower was liquid aluminium, there were other thing in the tower burning than kerosene.
Office Furniture, Plants, files, carpet, ceiling tiles and other stuff burn at much higher temperatures than kerosene does.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

I did read the transcripts of (I believe) the NORAD folks on duty on 9/11. I can't find the thread or link to it, yet.

Ahh, there we go. Here is the link to the Vanity Fair article containing the NORAD transcripts. Strong language warning.

[Edit] For good measure, here is the original post made by Dave J regarding the transcript.

Here's an except.

__________________
"4th Law of Modern Thermodynamics: Where Mihoshi is, Chaos Reigns." ~W. Hakubi
"Gun control is hitting your target; Recycling is reloading your brass." ~ Lex of Dirty Work.

i also just finished reading that link (TY VERMONTEER)

here is a small excerpt from it that im going to (Hopefully briefly) Elaborate on...:

When I asked Nasypany about the conspiracy theories—the people who believe that he, or someone like him, secretly ordered the shootdown of United 93 and covered it up—the corners of his mouth began to quiver. Then, I think to the surprise of both of us, he suddenly put his head in his hands and cried. "Flight 93 was not shot down," he said when he finally looked up. "The individuals on that aircraft, the passengers, they actually took the aircraft down. Because of what those people did, I didn't have to do anything."

These are real people
Real Americans that died- those that retook the plane from its hijackers took the lives of their fellow passengers around them in the Act of Self and National Defense.. The message is clear:
The United States is defended by MUCH more than its military..
And the Heroic actions of these people define those of us who are PROUD in our Country and peers.

Once, a few years ago, i was at a mall (In uniform) and an obvious Military Hater started grilling me about being a Murderer for Hire. i listened for a while to accusations and names before i asked him if He would pick up a weapon and fight? he said "i guess no i wouldnt" i said "Then lay your weapon by my side and ill fight for you. Ill Die for you too." That ended the conversation.

I think it must be fun to Invent Conspiracy theories... it must put excitment into a dull life or add a flare of Mystery to the ordinary..It disturbs a part of me that these deaths are placed "in vain" that these people fought for their country- Non Military- Just passengers- Died for their country. I admit it hits any persons (self included) emotions and humanity to be placed in such harsh situations. And theorists like to STRIP that humanity away from our military personel. Department of War is NOW called the Department of Defense for a REASON. It sometimes seems as if the theorists have lost THEIR humanity.
- we need to REMEMBER Who we are talking about.


Honor the Passengers of flight 93.


Side Note: im well aware that we are talking of Flight 77 in this thread.- before fifty people post to tell me...

No. This "robot plane" is your latest invention, which you dreamed up in the last few posts, because your make believe F-111 or whatever could not explain my question.

I do not consider that an answer to post 1058. Have you been to Washington DC? Have you looked at where the Pentagon is located? Have you looked at the pictures I linked to in that post? (those are all yes/no questions)

Do you understand how ridiculous your claim is that things could have been planted outside of the Pentagon? Do you think that none of the hundreds if not thousands of people driving by on major highways (who are probably more alert than usually because of a major fire in the Pentagon) would notice anything or could all be silenced? It is as believable as saying no one would notice a T. Rex in Times Square in NYC in the middle of rush hour.

Your claim about stuff planted inside the Pentagon is almost as ridiculous. Do you realize how many thousands of people work in and visit the Pentagon, many of whom are civilians? Do you think none of them noticed this and told the press? Do you think that the Pentagon absolutely controls everyone of them? How then do leaks of information come from government sources all the time? And if they are this powerful, why do they allow you, the destroyer of their lies, to live?

And what is with you and videos? Are videos the only proof of anything? Do you think people are only convicted of crimes if there is a video of the act? I suppose European explorers never discovered the Americas because there is no video of their arrival.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Yeah, it's really amusing to someone who actually lives in the D.C. area to hear how plane wreckage can be planted secretly in and around the Pentagon, or commercial airliners can be landed and hidden secretly at National or Andrews - in broad daylight.

By the way, my invitation still stands.

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

So even though NORAD had only one intercept over the continental US before 911 and it took over an hour and 15 minutes (Payne Stewart) and was then accomplished not with an air defense plane but instead with an unarmed plane already airborne for an unrelated training mission that was diverted, they should have intercepted these planes when given even less time? Have you even really thought about this?

Today passengers would overpower hijackers with boxcutters. Before 911 it was generally accepted that you would cooperate with the hijackers as they only wanted to divert the plane and not crash it into a building.

__________________
"Eternal vigilance is the price of supremacy"
------------Mark Twain

"Women are like Voltron. The more you can hook up, the better it gets."

It ahs never been proven what that is. It could be metal, it could be plastic, it could even be wood. At the low resolution and being zoomed in all you can tell is it is something that is glowing and falling. It is not definitely molten. Burning wood embers breaking off looks very similar. Personally, I think it is either plastic or a light metal like aluminum from some office furniture.

__________________
"Eternal vigilance is the price of supremacy"
------------Mark Twain

"Women are like Voltron. The more you can hook up, the better it gets."

That's pretty simplistic. It ignores strong evidence such as the photo of the nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon which is obviously not the nose of a 757.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
It ignores the fact that there were some beams in the wreckage of the towers that looked like they'd been cut by thermite
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...71955308136871
(49 minute 35 second mark)
which means that the explanations given in this video probably reflect reality.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...81047&q=9%2F11
Start watching at the 48 min. 45 sec. mark.
You people's reaction to this evidence was not the reaction of people who are seeking the truth. You are behaving like people whose objective is to whitewash the truth--just like the tactics described in this site.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums...pic.php?t=1222
That's the distinct impression that I get from the attitude of the moderators of this site too.
This thread I started was closed by a moderator.
The CIA and cocaine smuggling
Look at the lame explanation he gave for closing it before the topic could be adequately discussed. That was a perfectly reasonable topic to put in the "Conspiracy theory" section of a website.
This thread was closed too.
Noam Chomsky Says...
It violated the rule against talking about politics. Why is there a rule against talking about politics in the "Conspiracy theory" section of a website? How can we adequately talk about conspiracy theories if we can't discuss politics? Everybody's reaction to the articles and videos I put in post #29 of that thread were pretty lame too--not the reaction of truth-seekers. It was the reaction of people who want to obfuscate the truth.

It's obvious that this whole site was created as damage control to counter websites that are devoted to get at the truth of what the US government does and has been doing.

Once people see one or two of the documentaries about 9/11 in this link there isn't much you can do to make them think that 9/11 wasn't an inside job.
http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm
The evidence is too clear. You people are good but not good enough to obfuscate clear evidence like what's presented in these documentaries. More and more people are finally getting this information. You people can slow it down a bit the truth will prevail in the end.

Here are the two documentaries I mentioned above in case the truncated links don't work. Just put the pieces together.

ht
tp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871

ht
tp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8989407671184881047&q=9%2F11

Nope, more likely those beams were cut by a torch as part of the cleanup effort. The cut looks very similar to a torch cut and the cleanup had obviously started. You have also ignored what has been posted about thermite unable to cut a vertical beam.

__________________
"Eternal vigilance is the price of supremacy"
------------Mark Twain

"Women are like Voltron. The more you can hook up, the better it gets."

I understand that the events dicussed are a sensitive issue for many users, myself included. It is the aim of this forum to provide a place where all kinds of theories can be analysed logically and scientifically. Since David C did not answer the questions that were asked of him (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=891474), it is clear that this thread is not in which people are responding to each other. This forum is not a place to merely promote your theories without allowing them to be scrutinised. If people want to watch doctored home videos on YouTube, I am sure they are more than capable of finding them themselves. Until one of the moderators receives a PM from David C that expresses his willingness to answer the questions asked of him, I will close this thread as Tinaa promised in the aforementioned post.

__________________
Climate Change Australia