9/11 conspiracy debate

[I think not]

You're not looking at both sides though, are you?

I asked you first what you thought happened, your mind is made up a missile hit the Pentagon and the US Air Force shot down United 93, and yet you can't even formulate a hypothesis as to why there would be inconsistency in the entire operation.

Planes hitting the towers, missiles hitting the Pentagon and the Air Force shooting down a commercial airliner. Why? I think you should open your mind.

 

[lone wolf]

Wolf

We may argue and disagree on a great many issues, but I will acknowledge you have a brain (this isn't an isult) that can actually process information, contrary to others that just suck up the info.

You have your own beliefs as to what happened that day, and yet you don't have a completed opinion. It appears to be filled with gaps. For example, you must have your own theory why they would allow two planes to hit the towers while shooting a third one down and firing a missile into the Pentagon.

Why the inconsistency? I'd really like to hear your take on this. Truly.

How can anyone form a complete opinion without a good set of facts? Investigation is best accomplished without preconceived notion.

I don't want to believe America would do this to its own people any more than I want to believe America is so confident and smug that terrorists just walked in and stole four airplanes from right under its very nose, then used them as weapons against it and its people - or space aliens congered up holograms to cover the fact they stole two steel buildings and left their garbage behind.

I have heard a lot of things - from Isreal did it because Uncle Sam was paying more attention to her enemies - to Palestinians did it because Uncle Sam supports Israel - to some crazy theory about a New World Order - to Muslims did it because Allah told them to - to it was jealousy because the World Trade Centre wasn't the world's tallest building any more.

I live near North Bay Ontario - the Canadian anchor of that chain called NORAD. All the while we had fighters here, it was impossible NOT to notice the readiness of those guys - RCAF & USAF. If a robin flew in from the north, there was a squadron of Voo Doos there to greet it (exaggerated a bit to drive home the point)

We had Operational Readiness exercises at all hours of the day and sometimes lasting for two weeks at a time, yet all the while, that Hole and 28 Bomarcs were ready for EVERYTHING lest one Badger make it through. I am not kidding when I say it is inconcievable to me that the US Air Force fukked up and missed those planes. Not even Shania Twain could have diverted an on-duty radar tech's attention.

So ... you'll please excuse the gaps and the will to find out what happened. I live downwind. That gives me all the encouragement I need to want to know....

Wolf

 

[lone wolf]

You're not looking at both sides though, are you?

I asked you first what you thought happened, your mind is made up a missile hit the Pentagon and the US Air Force shot down United 93, and yet you can't even formulate a hypothesis as to why there would be inconsistency in the entire operation.

Planes hitting the towers, missiles hitting the Pentagon and the Air Force shooting down a commercial airliner. Why? I think you should open your mind.

Excuse me? I believe and I know mean two different things. I do NOT believe the official story - and gave valid reason why. Inconsistency is begat from confusion - or an attack of conscience. "I don't know" does not mean this happened or that didn't happen. I bet you were a scream when everyone looked under their beds for Commies....

Wolf

 

[I think not]

But you have facts, all you have to do is research each fact one at a time. Conspiracy theorists (I'm not claiming you are one of them) ask questions that will almost never be answered.

In all sincerity I have lost track of how many "theories" are out there. Let's face it, some people are never happy despite evidence slamming them in the face.

Are you familiar with the study from Purdue University regarding the missile theory of the Pentagon? Purdue University is literally the cradle of aeronautical and aerospace engineering in the United States. If my memory serves me correctly you are a scientist? Here's their report.

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/index.html

The end result? A commercial aircraft slammed into the Pentagon killing everyone on board.

Do you really believe Purdue University (Highly reputable all over the world in engineering) will conspire with the government?

And it's not only Purdue, dozens of foreign organizations have come up with the same conclusion.

I'd really like to hear what you have to say about this report. Oblige me.

 

[I think not]

Excuse me? I believe and I know mean two different things. I do NOT believe the official story - and gave valid reason why. Inconsistency is begat from confusion - or an attack of conscience. "I don't know" does not mean this happened or that didn't happen. I bet you were a scream when everyone looked under their beds for Commies....

Wolf

:roll:

I wasn't alive when your comrades were taking over the world.

 

[Toro]

In all sincerity I have lost track of how many "theories" are out there.

According to the BBC video, there are at least 50.

 

[EagleSmack]

According to the BBC video, there are at least 50.

Oh brother... there has to be more than that.

 

[Logic 7]

You haven't watched ANY of the videos of the collapses, have you. That would be the only way to explain how you don't get it.

...well, ok, not the ONLY way, but we'll keep it polite!

Watch the videos of the collapses, you will have visual proof of how WTC7 took more debris than Deutchesbank. Just luck of the draw maybe, maybe because WTC1 fell from higher up and had a wider debris radius? Don't know, but the video evidence is clear.

First of all, this proves you really don't know what you are talking about.

You know what , as shown in the picture below, wtc 7 suffered from the second collapse which was wtc 1, deutch bank suffered from the first collapse, which was wtc 2


Hey, you firstly said that wtc 7 collapse because it was near wtc 1, then when you realize there was building closer than wtc 7, you said there werent as tall, when you realize they were as tall, then you go by saying, they didnt take as much load of debris, so which is it?

 

[EagleSmack]

Once again Logic you are refusing to see what the videos explaining why WTC 7 collapsed. You are refusing to believe the NYFD firemen quotes describing what they saw. The building was damaged, so damaged that it collapsed.

You WANT to believe that it was a controlled demolition even though it would be impossible to do.

 

[lone wolf]

You're not looking at both sides though, are you?

I asked you first what you thought happened, your mind is made up a missile hit the Pentagon and the US Air Force shot down United 93, and yet you can't even formulate a hypothesis as to why there would be inconsistency in the entire operation.

Planes hitting the towers, missiles hitting the Pentagon and the Air Force shooting down a commercial airliner. Why? I think you should open your mind.

I'm not looking at both sides? Thank God for that! My search HAS been slanted - toward logical explanations (USAF asleep at the switch, government stupidity/denials thereof, terrorist reaction to arrogance - even the OFFICIAL LINE) Thanks for the link in another post. Doesn't tell me much more than I've already seen, and explains nothing of that final on-the-deck (and nearly impossible) approach.

It did lead to other sites - and some rather way-out-there ones too. When seen in the context of Ariel path markers, Masonic "all-seeing eyes" - and I finally found out what an Illiminati was - you are very correct. I haven't been looking at both sides. The sweep of this pendulum is one VERY broad arc....

Gawd! My observations and speculations are so middle of the road, they're tame! And this from a man who dares to walk the edge. Sheesh!....

Wolf

 

[I think not]

Thanks for the link in another post. Doesn't tell me much more than I've already seen, and explains nothing of that final on-the-deck (and nearly impossible) approach.

Wolf, I don't like arguing with you, I would much rather havea debate with you. Can we agree to steer away from insults for a tad? Believe it or not, I like reading your posts.

Now you said you read the link from Purdue University, tell me, do you find them credible enough to believe what they are saying?

Don't they make sense. I mean is the approach ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE?

 

[lone wolf]

Wolf, I don't like arguing with you, I would much rather havea debate with you. Can we agree to steer away from insults for a tad? Believe it or not, I like reading your posts.

Now you said you read the link from Purdue University, tell me, do you find them credible enough to believe what they are saying?

Don't they make sense. I mean is the approach ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE?

Perdue's findings make perfect sense. They are credible enough to be saved to my bookmark. A lot just get a cursory read, then are lost to the vortex of cyber space.

I'm thinking of the compression beneath a low-lift wing and the sort of skill, strength and luck required to keep an analogue aircraft from riding up - then nosing in. The 757 is completely computer assisted, so an approach at naught feet is possible - just at the edge of its capability - provided you can keep the engines from behaving like backhoes. Really, I have a hard time believing someone who (allegedly) washed out in a Cessna could do it.

Thanks again....

Wolf

 

[gopher]

aha! so these are the culprits who took down Tower # 7:

you clever little basturds, you!!

 

[I think not]

Perdue's findings make perfect sense. They are credible enough to be saved to my bookmark. A lot just get a cursory read, then are lost to the vortex of cyber space.

I'm thinking of the compression beneath a low-lift wing and the sort of skill, strength and luck required to keep an analogue aircraft from riding up - then nosing in. The 757 is completely computer assisted, so an approach at naught feet is possible - just at the edge of its capability - provided you can keep the engines from behaving like backhoes. Really, I have a hard time believing someone who (allegedly) washed out in a Cessna could do it.

Thanks again....

Wolf

But it's not impossible. Considering Purdue presents valid scientific data, isn't reasonable to assume, that it is more likely a plane hit the Pentagon than anything else?

See wolf, I'll tell you why I don't believe anything else hit the Pentagon other than an airplane.

1) A pilot from a C-130 saw the plane hit the Pentagon. He's even in the BBC video Toro posted.
2) The people on board are missed, by hundreds of friends and relatives.
3) I can present no logical explanation as to why "someone" would shoot a missile into the Pentagon and not just slam an airplane into it.
4) Dozens of people on the ground saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
5) Aircraft debris all over the place. (Forget the poles on the highway)
6) Just because something is unlikely to happen (piloting the aircraft at such low altitudes and speed) doesn't mean it cannot happen.
7) The executive branch of the US government can't keep a secret if their lives depended on it.

 

[gopher]

The executive branch of the US government can't keep a secret if their lives depended on it.


But they sure did a good job of withholding the Pentagon Papers for a good long time.

 

[I think not]

The executive branch of the US government can't keep a secret if their lives depended on it.


But they sure did a good job of withholding the Pentagon Papers for a good long time.

One year is a good long time?

 

[gopher]

The Pentagon Papers were withheld for about 7 years.

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

Is it too late for me to get on the BushCo brought down the twin towers band wagon....I figured out how he did....they had all these aids patients and they promised their families huge money...they all ran in and hugged part of the building...they were all loaded with the new stealth extra strong super silent Bomb NoGo Bang Bang stuff...and by remote control they flew in planes and let the bombs bring down the place after catching everyone's attention....

 

[lone wolf]

But it's not impossible. Considering Purdue presents valid scientific data, isn't reasonable to assume, that it is more likely a plane hit the Pentagon than anything else?

See wolf, I'll tell you why I don't believe anything else hit the Pentagon other than an airplane.

1) A pilot from a C-130 saw the plane hit the Pentagon. He's even in the BBC video Toro posted.
It's this pilot, more so than anything, who gave the most compelling evidence. His "matter-of-fact" manner wasn't that of an actor spouting prescribed lines. Even the best actors can't get the eyes right.
2) The people on board are missed, by hundreds of friends and relatives.
Lives really don't matter to causes. Not saying there wasn't one here. It's a sad fact that empty chairs fire emotion and support - for the very cause that took them sometimes.
3) I can present no logical explanation as to why "someone" would shoot a missile into the Pentagon and not just slam an airplane into it.
A cruise missile creates just the right illusion and has the punch to carry through.
4) Dozens of people on the ground saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
Dozens of people also report smelling the odour of cordite - or reported the airplane as small and blue
5) Aircraft debris all over the place. (Forget the poles on the highway)
Those debris are the least convincing evidence. "Scatter" is all wrong. Aircraft hit at near a 45 degree angle, yet there doesn't appear to be enough rebound litter. Firewall does not appear to have borne a great deal of impact. I suppose that's the limitation of having to resort to TV news and computer monitors for a looksee - and where those "gaps" are born.
6) Just because something is unlikely to happen (piloting the aircraft at such low altitudes and speed) doesn't mean it cannot happen.
Granted. Sometimes a horseshoe up the butt is the greatest gift of all. I don't believe those "pilots" were unschooled, though. It takes knowledge to reprogram an auto pilot - and guidance IS necessary at 35 thousand feet. There are NO landmarks and a lot of real estate between here and there. Could the flight school inepness be a roust to beat detection - or to make the authorities look REALLY stupid?
7) The executive branch of the US government can't keep a secret if their lives depended on it.

Wolf

 

[I think not]

The Pentagon Papers were withheld for about 7 years.

No they weren't. The Pentagon Papers were commissioned in 1967 and took nearly 3 years to put together the 7000 page study. It was leaked in 1971.