Jump through hoops? You can't just post something and deem it a fact. You have to provide back up. You state "The fact that Flight 77 couldn't have had anyone produced cell calls is well established". That is not a fact, it is an opinion presented as fact. The damn plane was highjacked with the intention of crashing it into a builiding. Do you really think the terrorists continued to fly at 25,000+ feet after they took the plane. It is reasonable to think that after they high jacked the planes, the reduced their altitude significantly. In order to make your opinion a fact, you need to post data from the FAA showing that the planes were above 8,000 feet at the time of the supposed phone calls. You refuse to answer my questions because you don't want everyone to know that you are lying in order to support your little theory. The fact is that experts believed that cell phones would not work above an altitude of 8,000 feet although they couldn't rule out that some calls might go through. Here is another question that you probably won't answer. Is it possible that the terrorists reduced their altitude after highjacking the planes thereby making the cell phone calls possible? Furthermore, how did the government get all of these people who just lost relatives to lie and support the government story? Were they coerced, blackmailed, bribed? And were is the evidence to support that? I promise you that if my wife just died in a plane crash, I would not be willing to fabricate a story about my last words with her to help the government with their conspiracy. You are not claiming one person did this, you are claiming all of them did this. You must have reached that conclusion on one of your trips to fantasy land!
Tom, This would be a lot easier if you would stick to one format of replies and start using the quote function provided by the forum. Also, bring up one point at a time and stay on it until each of us agrees that the subject is finished. You jump around all over the place posting 8 things in a row without waiting for a response and then refuse to answer my questions with the infintile excuse that I didn't answer yours first. If I missed one of your questions, I am sorry. I will answer any question you ask and if I don't have an answer, I will say "good point". Now play fair and talk about one topic at a time. I don't mind you referencing other areas in order to prove a point, but that is not what you are doing. You are completely changing topics that have not been resolved mutually. BTW, did you like my hypothetical conversation between George Bush & Osama Bin Laden? I thought it was funny.
Chill out Lehigh I wasn't directly attacking you and if seemed that way I apologize. My point on this whole mess is that the topic has wandered off so many times and it's been due to the "Muslims did it" fact. Does anyone here think that Muslims were NOT involved in 9/11? I sincerely doubt it so why does that horse keep getting beaten? The way I understood the origins of this thread it was a debate on whether or not the U.S. government had anything to do with it. If Bush and Cheney came out tomorrow and flat out said. "We knew it all along and we helped with the aid of Bin Laden" there would still be no doubt that Muslims were involved.
You want to play these games of misdirection..I guess that is certainly YOUR perrogative. American Airlines IN 2004, announced an experimental trial, that would "make in flight mobile calls" available. Why would they institute and pay for a technology that was already available and working? If Ms. Olsen was able to make cell phone calls to her hubby, why didn't anyone else on the flight attempt to do so? So..using your logic...if I see a downed tree in the forest., can I assume that it fell, even though I never actually saw it fall? You want me to run around the internet or where ever to facilitate your invalid logic on terms that you choose for me. I choose to post what I think is reasonable to conclude that the official 911 story that we were all told is one huge lie, and help show that the information is available to anyone who bothers to render an honest effort to look.
Sure...one topic at a time... General Myers testified to Congress that there were "war games" depicting the very scenarios of actual events that were occurring that day. Your comments please.
This is a MUST watch video. There were numerous reasons why MANY people could have wanted building #7 gone. Probably even more than has been speculated about. I think the phone calls, recordings and newspaper articles are pretty damning. Midas, I have no doubt Islamic terrorists were responsible for the majority of what went on!! I'm not arguing that one bit. Or that it was a complete surprise attack to most everyone. My suspicion is how many people (whoever they may be) had information, if only vague information, in advance of this. There's a good chance Bush had no idea it was going to happen. I don't think he's that good of an actor to fake what he went through. I'm saying there are other entities involved that could have done this. Building #7 apparently had things going on within it that would be the fate of 10s maybe hundreds of billions of dollars. There isn't much that can't be done on this Earth over 1 billion dollars. Secretly rigging a building to collapse would be nothing. Somebody wanted it gone. It will forever be a side story in itself.
This footage of the WTC 7 and North Tower collapse recently appeared on YouTube. Note the vertical column of windows blown out just before the collapse on WTC 7. Here's another one: WTC 7 Collapse - Previously Unreleased Footage. What Really Happened: The BBC's 'WTC 7 Collapsed At 4:54 p.m.': At 21:54 GMT on 9/11/2001 the BBC announced that WTC 7 had collapsed. There was just one problem with this news: WTC 7 did not collapse until 22:20 GMT.
Robert Balsamo 4000+ Total Flight Time Former: Independence Air/Atlantic Coast Airlines Glen Stanish 15,000+ Total Flight Time American Airlines, ATA, TWA, Continental Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret) 30,000+ Total Flight Time Former Pan Am, United United States Air Force (ret) Over 100 Combat Missions Flown?? John Lear Son of Bill Lear Founder, creator of the Lear Jet Corporation More than 40 years of Flying 19,000+ Total Flight Time Captain Jeff Latas USAF (ret) Captain - JetBlue Airways Ted Muga Naval Aviator - Retired Commander, USNR Col Robert Bowman USAF (ret) Directed all the 'Star Wars' programs under Presidents Ford and Carter - 101 combat missions Alfons Olszewski Founder Veterans For Truth US Army (ret) Aircraft Maintenance Crew Chief Robin Hordon Former Boston Center Controller Commercial Pilot John Panarelli Friend and fellow aviator of John Ogonowski - Capt. AA #1111,000+ Total Flight Time Eastern Metro, Braniff, Ryan International, Emery Worldwide, Polar Air Cargo Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford United States Marine Corps (ret) 10,000+ Total Flight Time 303 Combat Missions Captain Dan Govatos 10,000+ Total Flight Time Former Chief Pilot of Casino Express airlines Director of Operations Training at Polar Air George Nelson Colonel USAF (Ret.) Licensed Commercial Pilot and Aircraft Mechanic Dennis Spear Army Aviator (ret) 7000+ Total Flight Time Operations Officer, Aviation Safety Officer Captain Joe H. Ferguson 30,000+ Total Flight Time (ret) USAF (ret) Gee whiz "DUDE"....who are these wackos????
Now play fair and talk about one topic at a time. I don't mind you referencing other areas in order to prove a point, but that is not what you are doing. You are completely changing topics that have not been resolved mutually. -------------------------------------------------------------- Gee Lehigh...I'm sorry my schedule doesn't coincide with yours. Maybe I should just quit posting until YOU PERSONALLY, have had the time to respond and "approve" my comments for posting.
911 proof Nor could "experts" proof that calls could be made above 8000 feet. Hell, I can't even get my cell phone to connected if I move two steps while talking TODAY, in 2009. But several thousand feet in the air and moving several hundred miles an hour in 2001...no problem!!! I love it. WHERE THE HELL IS YOUR PROOF? Do you claim that the President and his handlers have told us the truth? You refuse to consider the information shown to you that punches huge holes into the official version. You apparently refuse to check out the information for yourself. You tell us what we "truthers" have uncovered is false. Okay, we’ll buy that, we’ll concede that you’re right...and that all of us are wrong. In fact, I’ll take it all back and admit the errors of my ways IF you do something first. Show me YOUR proof. Tell me why I should believe the story you have swallowed, and show me what you have to back up your claims. Where's YOUR proof, true believers?
UL letter to NIST And this was no ordinary fire. It was a massive fire that spanned several floors and was aided from the start by the jet fuel. Furthermore, it has always been part of the official story that the architecture of the towers are what cause the building to fall down instead of falling over. ----metal expert Lehigh --------------------------------------------------------- Lehigh...was wondering if you care to make any comments of the following excerpts of a letter written to Frank Gayle of NIST by then UL member Kevin Ryan, or am I moving too fast for you? The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up, and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press, in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation. However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse. This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.
..a few random points about this authoritative and well researched NAT GEO hit piece.... Once again, there was no explanation for the 6.5 second freefall collapse of WTC 7 that was not hit by an airliner, just like there was no mention of its remarkable collapse in NIST’s 9/11 Commission Report. Notice the beams shown in this "piece" were neatly sliced at a demolition angle? Looked like the nose of a plane..(DOH!! Maybe that's what happened to the Pentagon! The massive force of the flying steel beams blasts--oops I mean, the falling down of WTC1 and 2-- were hurled over great distances with such speed into Bldg 7--I MEAN THE PENTAGON-- that the buildings simply fell down due to the intensity of the blast--I MEAN THE FALL---was so great!!!) Where are the plane wreckages or the bodies at the Pentagon and Shanksville? Shooting an aluminum ”fuselage” at 500 mph into a plywood box with 5 rings of concrete in a supposed simulation simply illustrated that indeed it was a missile that hit the Pentagon. Who was the idiot that thought up that ridiculous charade for National Geographic? Where are the holes or the two 6.5 ton titanium engines of the alleged airliner that hit the Pentagon? And since they brought it up, how did Oswald shoot JFK in the back of the neck and then in the right forehead, both from behind, while the Presidential limousine was travelling away from him? (Oh yeah...the Gov't said Mr. Oswald did it..I almost forgot)
Nat geo hit piece There was also a steel beam softening experiment. Fire in open air was claimed to have reached a temperature of over 2000 degrees F., and led to the beam buckling. Of course, this is irrelevant for many reasons. The open air was not what was happening regarding the towers, where any alleged jet fuel was 1.expended in the outside explosions, and 2.whose smoke color--black--denoted a low temperature fire inside the oxygen deprived area. The claim that the shock of impact took off all asbestos coating on the beams, is also ludicrous; and obviously both necessary for the regime’s position, and an outright lie. The idiot who just recited one stupid, ignorant lie after another about 9/11, the JFK Assassination, Pearl Harbor, etc. was David Aaronovitch, who closed the show for NGC. His bio includes the fact that he was awarded the “George Orwell Prize for his political writing in 2001.” Yes Big Brother is proud of this Intel asset for his “journalism.” I don't guess it's surprising to note that Nat Geo is a product of Rupert Murdoch, fair and balanced. LOL
Ok...let's see the "score" so far...No argument that NORAD changed it's timeline 3 times. check. (1) Nothing on the FAA. check.(2) No challenge as to Norman Mineta's congressional testimony. check. (3) No responses to the P-56 secure airspace over the Pentagon (unless you count the "they caught us off guard" comment, which I don't so) Check. (4) E-rings/aluminum balls was sorta challenged (but not in a very coherent way), but I won't count that one yet, so, still at (4). Cell phone technology is technically still in dispute, (albeit by only one misguided soul), and at least one agrees with me, so we'll stay at (4) for now. No responses to the passenger manifest listing supposed hijackers. check (5). Nothing credible on 93's wreckage from 2-8 miles away. check. (6) Nothing on Popular Mechanic's hack job. check. (7) Vaporized steel/aluminum?? no explanation what happened to the steel parts, and titanium engines being present or evaporited..one gent even had the courage to agree with me, so I'll say check there (8) No contesting General Myers/ "war games" congressional testimony. check (9) No offerings on the military "stand down". check. (10) No attempts at "Hani was an expert pilot" thing. Again..check (11) No rebuttals to the Pentagon supposed "witness" list. check (12) Then, last, but certainly not least, WTC7 falls down by itself, even some agreement, so, again, check (13). So...out of 15 points, at least 13 of them I seem to be relatively unchallenged on. 2 out of 15 haven't been proven in any fashion (at least to any definitive point so far as I can tell). That must mean that I (we truthers) have a pretty good case. The disputed subjects so far appear to be that folks can't decide whether the Pentagon plane actually evaporated or not, and if it did, was it before or after penetrating 6 e-rings and folks can't decide whether or not cell calls were placed from flight 77, whether they were might have been seat phones, or whether they even happened at all. I'd say round 1 is wrapped up.
Tom, Why should we believe anything you say. There are only two scenarios. Either you are an idiot who doesn't know how to read or you are purposefully being juvenile. Either way, your credibility is shot after this stunt. I asked you politely to stick to one topic when you post. Check the post number Tom. It is post #182. We are now on post #195. Only two posts between 182 and 195 are by other members. Perhaps you decided your only chance at victory is to just post so much crap that everyone will give up. All of your posts are lies presented as truth. Your favorite philosophy seems to be "I know you are but what I am I." I ask for proof and your response is to tell me to provide proof. Your ghetto little tactics are elementary and obvious. Talking to you is like talking a spoiled little 5 year old. I ask you to stick to one topic at a time and you proceed to post 10 posts in a row. What a freaking joke you are. You study this stuff like it is your entire life yet you still don't have the confidence to discuss it without resorting to trickery and lies. Come on Tom, this should be easy for you. You have spent 16 hours a day for the last 8 years researching your little fantasy. It occurs to me that you just don't ever want to do anything that anyone asks. I am still waiting for you to post a photo of a rare coin that you own. You trolled the Cointalk website for months waiting for an opportunity to spread your truther propaganda with your little inside job avatar. So here we are Tom. Either you start to play fair, or I will do what you are doing and just start posting bold face lies and I will sick Midas on you! BTW, did you like my hypothetical conversation between George Bush & Osama Bin Laden? I thought it was funny. (third time)
I gave you your ONE topic about the war games on 911, and the testimony the General gave to congress. So care to say they're false....good...whatever?? You asked for proof of the war games. I believe General Myers PROVIDED THAT IS LIVE CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY . Your turn Sir. I will post for others while you respond to this question. I can't wait to see your answer.
You know Lehigh, maybe dealing with you just ain't worth it. MY POSTS ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE....I'VE EVEN PICKED ONE FOR YOU. General Myers testimony to congress, confirming that there were war games that day. See???? A single topic...so....WHAT SAY YOU?? I've about had enough of you. Now don't go acting like a 5 year old if I continue to post things for others. Who the hell died and made you my boss??....dictating to me how, when, how many to post?? Answer the question I've given you or go away...sheesh.
Let me get this straight. It took you 10 posts to give me one topic. That is a lie. And how is you making up stuff about war games a fact? If General Myers gave testimony to Congress then provide the date, the Congressional committee, and a link to where the entire testimony can be viewed so that we can see what he said for ourselves instead of taking your word for it. Since you have proven to lie so often, you can't be trusted. Now I know what is coming. You don't want me to read the actual testimony so you are going to give me some bull about doing my own research. You will tell me that I am not your boss and that my rules don't apply to you; anything to avoid providing actual proof which does not exist. If you have actual proof, why don't you just quote the testimony and provide a reference. That is what any other normal person would do. BTW. Thanks for making me $100. I bet one of the other forum members that you would call me a 5 year old. PS Did you like my hypothetical conversation between George Bush & Osama Bin Laden? I thought it was funny. (fourth time)
Here you go, I have not read it just found it for you http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040814220906511
Excellent Steve, thanks for the link. Ok, I'll admit it. I went and ordered every single Alex Jones DVD. I bought them all. I want all sides and all info available. Very interesting stuff this thread.
