911 Truth Movement

[Baloo]

You guys don't think there's a fair difference between missing the windows in a grey plane (look how hard they are to see on the photos and video) and mistaking human remains lying on the ground?

I think there is a massive difference between a paper saying there appeared to be human remains, (which from what I can see was not later confirmed by the paper let alone anyone who was part of the crash investigation team) and proof that human remains were found on the ground miles away.

Are you seriously basing this argument on an unsubstantiated "appears" in a local rag?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The previous paragraph reads:

Finding the flight data recorder had been the focus of investigators as they widened their search area today following the discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine.

But not 8 miles.

 

[AngryAnt]

You have to admit it could seem a little convenient that a nice piece of fuselage with windows is sitting on the roof of a neighbouring building.

All evidence that supports the official version is, by definition, "too convenient" in the eyes of a conspiracy theorist. It would be a pretty lame conspiracy that would use a plane with no windows (why?) requiring the planting of evidence of windowed fuselage on the roof of another building (why?). If you are going to plant evidence, why not do it right?

 

[tigertim]

You have to admit it could seem a little convenient that a nice piece of fuselage with windows is sitting on the roof of a neighbouring building.

You guys don't think there's a fair difference between missing the windows in a grey plane (look how hard they are to see on the photos and video) and mistaking human remins lying on the ground?

So many things dispelled today? Like what?

the witness of a UA plane flying into tower 2, that plane debris was mostly paper and wasn't 8 miles away but 1 mile away, that flight 77 was real!

And it's only "convenient" for te theorist to have a plane part found sitting on top.

Unbelievable.

 

[Disco08]

Gray planes that very few TM'ers assert or present as evidence anyway and plane debris that multiple local papers report as being much more than paper. So many things. Can I count all the points I've made to no response as ones you guys have no explanation for?

Of course it's only convenient in the context of a windowless plane hitting the towers.

All evidence that supports the official version is, by definition, "too convenient" in the eyes of a conspiracy theorist. It would be a pretty lame conspiracy that would use a plane with no windows (why?) requiring the planting of evidence of windowed fuselage on the roof of another building (why?). If you are going to plant evidence, why not do it right?

Obviously the same reason you'd plant a terrorist's passport on the scene. To create evidence of something that didn't exist.

But not 8 miles.

True. The 8 miles point came from this quote from another local paper. Unfortunately the link is broken but I'm sure it existed at some point. Either way it can be checked in archives so it's unlikely someone would fake it:

The Pennsylvania state police said debris from the crash has shown up about 8 miles away in a residential area where local media quoted some residents as seeing flaming debris from the sky.

But investigators were unwilling to say whether the presence of debris in two separate places evinced an explosion.

I think there is a massive difference between a paper saying there appeared to be human remains, (which from what I can see was not later confirmed by the paper let alone anyone who was part of the crash investigation team) and proof that human remains were found on the ground miles away.

Are you seriously basing this argument on an unsubstantiated "appears" in a local rag?

No. Did you not also read the page full of eyewitness testimony claiming to have heard explosions?

I also don't see why the wording is that important. What else would human remains be? The report states clearly that the search area was widened. Why would they do that?

There's also more here, including an assertion that dozens of people saw all sorts of debris washing ashore at Indian Lake.

http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_secondary_debris_field.html


Here's an interesting new discussion point, from the Philly Daily News to keep KR happy.

Two men who worked extensively in the wreckage of the World Trade Center claim they helped federal agents find three of the four “black boxes” from the jetliners that struck the towers on 9/11 - contradicting the official account.

Both the independent 9/11 Commission and federal authorities continue to insist that none of the four devices - a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR) from the two planes - were ever found in the wreckage.

But New York City firefighter Nicholas DeMasi has written in a recent book -- self-published by several Ground Zero workers -- that he escorted federal agents on an all-terrain vehicle in October 2001 and helped them locate three of the four.

His account is supported by a volunteer, Mike Bellone, whose efforts at Ground Zero have been chronicled in the New York Times and elsewhere. Bellone said assisted DeMasi and the agents and that saw a device that resembling a “black box” in the back of the firefighter’s ATV.

Their story raises the question of whether there was a some type of cover-up at Ground Zero. Federal aviation officials - blaming the massive devastation - have said the World Trade Center attacks seem to be the only major jetliner crashes in which the critical devices were never located.

A footnote to the 9/11 Commission Report issued this summer flatly states: “The CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175” - the two planes that hit the Trade Center - “were not found.”

And officials for the FBI - which oversaw the cleanup at Ground Zero - and the New York City Fire Department repeated this week that the devices were never recovered.

...........

“At one point, I was asked to take Federal Agents around the site to search for the black boxes from the planes,” he wrote. “We were getting ready to go out. My ATV was parked at the top of the stairs at the Brooks Brothers entrance area. We loaded up about a million dollars worth of equipment and strapped it into the ATV...”

“There were a total of four black boxes. We found three.”

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/archives/001139.html

Reasonable explanations anyone?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Really?

You do realise that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Firefighters for 9/11 Truth are all websites which oppose the OR don't you? You do also realise that literally hundreds of eyewitness accounts from firefighters, police, military, government officials as well as the public contradict the OR as well right?

You've been antagonistic since the start of this thread. Your first post accused Harry of being high. Since then the constant theme of your posting has been that anyone who doesn't believe the OR is a crackpot. That's not only antagonistic it's disrespectful.

I've made a lot of points on this thread. Yes I've made a few mistakes but I'm happy enough to admit that. I've also posted plenty of points/questions that none of you have responded to.

I also just posted a link to a page full of eyewitness testimony printed in major or local newspapers. Otherwise I've tried to focus on eyewitness account and uncontested facts. I've posted very few links to TM sites. I know you guys are unlikely to read them anyway. Personally I reckon this discussion would be heaps better if you stuck to debating the points rather than nitpicking every little mistake and b!tching about my method.

On my line to Harry, he didn't noticeably take any offence and it was joke, I didn't realise he was serious.

See disingenuous again. I don't think you've made mistakes, you've supported your argument with things you believed to be facts without much critical analysis and when they have been shown to be factually incorrect you haven't recanted you have instead changed tack and accused me of arrogance and antagonism. I haven't been abusive or personal but you seem to be getting pretty agitated. I haven't nit-picked I have found factual errors, as have others. I thought that was the point of debating, to find the holes the others argument. And anyway you asked me twice to give evidence of where you had used dubious info. I quoted you, if didn't want me to why did you ask?

Those websites you keep mentioning are also full of unsubstantiated speculation and personal accounts. As has been pointed out ad nauseam personal accounts are full of unintentional conflation, it is human nature and it makes eyewitness statements unreliable in the extreme.

 

[AngryAnt]

Gray planes that very few TM'ers assert or present as evidence anyway and plane debris that multiple local papers report as being much more than paper. So many things. Can I count all the points I've made to no response as ones you guys have no explanation for?

Of course it's only convenient in the context of a windowless plane hitting the towers.

Obviously the same reason you'd plant a terrorist's passport on the scene. To create evidence of something that didn't exist.

You miss the point. In such an outrageous conspiracy that must have been years and billions of dollars in the making, why use a windowless plane? Just as easy to use a plane with windows.

If you are planting evidence of things that didn't exist or never happened, why not plant them deep in the heart of Ground Zero?

 

[Baloo]

I also don't see why the wording is that important. What else would human remains be?

Wording isn't important? Seriously ? Or are you just taking the p!ss now ? Any media outlet in Litigation USA knows wordingis vitally important.

As for the human remains, who saw them ? Who reported seeing them ? Why do you believe a local rag with an unsubstantiated 'appears' ?

Reasonable explanations anyone?

Prove his revelations 11 years down the track are correct and then I'll try and explain them. Is hard to try and explain something someone may have made up.

At least Bellone is hedging his bets and saying he only saw something that appeared to be a solitary black box. I wonder how many other black boxes from massive airline disasters he's seen before to be able to make that call.

 

[tigertim]

Ok cool, my turn. "It's a little bit convenient for the theorists purposes for someone to find 3 boxes that "resemble" black boxes isn't t?"

Ah yes, it's so much easier to be the theorist.

Give us 1 FACT! Not a million tenuous links that mean nothing or are often proven wrong. 1 fact, surely in a cover up operation this big there has to be at least 1 whistle blower, some paper work, emails, voice recordings? Something that proves the was an inside job. After 11 years surely there's 1 person?

Or we're they all murdered?

 

[tigertim]

And just as a gauge Disco what are your thoughts on other conspiracy theories for:

Moon landing
Katrina
London tube bombing
Challenger
Stolen generation
Holocaust
Kennedy assassination

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Wording isn't important? Seriously ? Or are you just taking the p!ss now ? Any media outlet in Litigation USA knows wordingis vitally important.

As for the human remains, who saw them ? Who reported seeing them ? Why do you believe a local rag with an unsubstantiated 'appears' ?

Prove his revelations 11 years down the track are correct and then I'll try and explain them. Is hard to try and explain something someone may have made up.

At least Bellone is hedging his bets and saying he only saw something that appeared to be a solitary black box. I wonder how many other black boxes from massive airline disasters he's seen before to be able to make that call.

Important to note too that Bellone was a self-proclaimed "honorary" fire fighter and this is disputed by NYFD so he has no expertise as such and he is corroborating a story he was told. He also has some dubious activities that have got him in a bit strife since.

 

[Disco08]

He must have been somewhat trusted given they had him in there helping to find some of the most sensitive equipment to have ever existed.

And just as a gauge Disco what are your thoughts on other conspiracy theories for:

Moon landing
Katrina
London tube bombing
Challenger
Stolen generation
Holocaust
Kennedy assassination

Aside from the moon landing I haven't read about any of those conspiraxcy theories. I do think it's very strange they haven't been back to the moon though given the advancement in the equipment they have at their disposal to test things out there these days.

Is it that hard to accept that reasonable people with some intelligence can have a differing opinion? Do you think all of us that don't accept the 9/11 OR must be idiots that get sucked in by every conspiracy theory?

On my line to Harry, he didn't noticeably take any offence and it was joke, I didn't realise he was serious.

See disingenuous again. I don't think you've made mistakes, you've supported your argument with things you believed to be facts without much critical analysis and when they have been shown to be factually incorrect you haven't recanted you have instead changed tack and accused me of arrogance and antagonism. I haven't been abusive or personal but you seem to be getting pretty agitated. I haven't nit-picked I have found factual errors, as have others. I thought that was the point of debating, to find the holes the others argument. And anyway you asked me twice to give evidence of where you had used dubious info. I quoted you, if didn't want me to why did you ask?

Those websites you keep mentioning are also full of unsubstantiated speculation and personal accounts. As has been pointed out ad nauseam personal accounts are full of unintentional conflation, it is human nature and it makes eyewitness statements unreliable in the extreme.

Yet not long ago you said it was crackpot websites vs the OR and eyewitnesses.

Can you point out a single error I've made and not admitted to. Can you name me a website I keep mentioning that is full of unsubstantiated speculation?

I'm not at all agitated BTW. I think what I've said is entirely true of the way you've gone about debating this topic.

You miss the point. In such an outrageous conspiracy that must have been years and billions of dollars in the making, why use a windowless plane? Just as easy to use a plane with windows.

If you are planting evidence of things that didn't exist or never happened, why not plant them deep in the heart of Ground Zero?

Yeah, yeah. I get got the point. I was only trying to justify the comment from my frame of mind at the time. Using a tanker such as the one I posted a pic of could make sense if you wanted to get a lot more fuel into the building.

Anyway, I admit the gray plane theory is unlikely at best. The reason I read so much about it and wanted to discuss it is because the implications if true are obvious and profound.

Wording isn't important? Seriously ? Or are you just taking the p!ss now ? Any media outlet in Litigation USA knows wordingis vitally important.

As for the human remains, who saw them ? Who reported seeing them ? Why do you believe a local rag with an unsubstantiated 'appears' ?

Why would I disbelieve a local newpaper? What motivation do they have to distort the truth? Did you notice the second report from another paper with similar content?

The use of the word "appears" isn't important IMO. Papers often say that in preliminary reporting. The greater fact, as I said, is that the search area was widened. Again, Why?

Prove his revelations 11 years down the track are correct and then I'll try and explain them. Is hard to try and explain something someone may have made up.

At least Bellone is hedging his bets and saying he only saw something that appeared to be a solitary black box. I wonder how many other black boxes from massive airline disasters he's seen before to be able to make that call.

Black boxes all look the same. It'd be pretty hard to imagine anything else with their appearance sitting in an ATV which was being used for the specific purpose of searching for the black boxes.

What motivation does DeMasi have to make this up? Doesn't the fact that every other black box from every other major accident has been found and the fact that they are designed to withstand the impact and temperatures they would have endured during the crash and collapse also support the notion someone would have found them?

Ok cool, my turn. "It's a little bit convenient for the theorists purposes for someone to find 3 boxes that "resemble" black boxes isn't t?"

Ah yes, it's so much easier to be the theorist.

Give us 1 FACT! Not a million tenuous links that mean nothing or are often proven wrong. 1 fact, surely in a cover up operation this big there has to be at least 1 whistle blower, some paper work, emails, voice recordings? Something that proves the was an inside job. After 11 years surely there's 1 person?

Or we're they all murdered?

Jennings' testimony, if taken as fact, is absolute proof of explosions inside WTC7 before either tower collapsed. That's surely quite meaningful.

Also the fact that multiple lines of evidence was destroyed and the investigative process severely restricted is very suggestive of a cover up.

It took 50 years for the Northwoods operation to be discovered. No doubt plenty of people knew of it though. Surely there would have been a paper trail and the odd whistle blower there too? I think you underestimate the capabilities and resources of the US government and armed forces.

Just as you can insist there needs to be concrete evidence I can insist there should be no facts that contradict the OR. That's plainly not true. Still, I'd rather discuss things we have evidence of.

 

[Baloo]

Why would I disbelieve a local newpaper? What motivation do they have to distort the truth? Did you notice the second report from another paper with similar content?

Believe wasn't the right word. You are basing your belief that human remains were found miles away from the crash site on an unsubstantiated, unattributed (is that a word ?) one off line that wasn't 100% convinced itself that there were human remains found ?

The use of the word "appears" isn't important IMO. Papers often say that in preliminary reporting.

It's massively important. The paper hadn't confirmed there were human remains found miles from the crash scene so it wrote it as such.

The greater fact, as I said, is that the search area was widened. Again, Why?

Why is it a greater fact ? There's been a massive crash. If they found any debris, and they had, it's confirmed, where they were searching, why wouldn't they widen the search to see what else is out there. Forensic searches keep widening until nothing is found, at least that's what CSI do.

Black boxes all look the same. It'd be pretty hard to imagine anything else with their appearance sitting in an ATV which was being used for the specific purpose of searching for the black boxes.

The same as what ? Had these guys ever seen a black box recorder before ? They are pretty hard to miss.

Yet despite the fact they are very hard to miss, your man said he saw something that resembled a black box. He himself doesn't make the call on whether it was or wasn 't a black box.

Jennings' testimony, if taken as fact, is absolute proof of explosions inside WTC7 before either tower collapsed. That's surely quite meaningful.

Why is Hess constantly ignored ? Is he still alive or was he killed too ?

 

[tigertim]

You,re not even in the realm of reality if you claim Jennings claim of explosions (which is probably due to a timeline issue) in an area where 2 planes have crashed into 2 buildings and created 300000 tonnes (and millions of litres of jet fuel) as FACT that there's a cover up.

Who were the terrorists then? Were they just made up names, never existed? The phone calls from the passsengers back to their friends and family saying there were terrorists on DIFFERENT planes? Why would they do that? Were the terrorists recruited by the US government?

 

[Rosy]

I also don't see why the wording is that important. What else would human remains be? The report states clearly that the search area was widened. Why would they do that?

The wording there is important in regards to showing what we're willing to take on board or not depending on our mindset on a particular topic. They were either human remains or they weren't. "Appeared to be" doesn't give the least bit of faith they existed. I doubt too many would be qualified to differentiate between animal and human remains if it was just a bit of flesh and bone. Is there any evidence that the remains were forensically tested and found to be human? If they were is there any evidence tying them in with the actual incident?

There are plenty of articles where the content is inaccurate and/or deliberately misleading. There are often very differing accounts from eye witnesses at the scene of a disaster zone.

To me a claim of "appeared to be human remains" and tying them in with this incident gives me no more faith in the validity than claims of Jesus feeding the masses with the loaves and fishes. Both are obviously believed by some but not enough info for me to be convinced they happened.

 

[Disco08]

In breaking news sitations you hear reporters use the phrase "what appeared to be" constantly. It certainly wouldn't mean the reporter had no faith at all in what they were reporting as you suggest.

These are local newspaper reports citing residents, business people and police who all say they found debris (beyond paper) well outside the radius the OR details.

You,re not even in the realm of reality if you claim Jennings claim of explosions (which is probably due to a timeline issue) in an area where 2 planes have crashed into 2 buildings and created 300000 tonnes (and millions of litres of jet fuel) as FACT that there's a cover up.

Who were the terrorists then? Were they just made up names, never existed? The phone calls from the passsengers back to their friends and family saying there were terrorists on DIFFERENT planes? Why would they do that? Were the terrorists recruited by the US government?

I assume you're saying it's a timeline issue because of the NIST report. Did you see the page I linked to showing the evidence pointing to its errancy?

The NIST report also claims all the damage done to WTC7 was caused by the towers' collpase. Jennings reports seeing WTC7 evacuated and badly damaged as well as reporting he heard many explosions all before either tower collapsed. If you can't see the relevance of this testimony (as I said, assuming you accept it) I think it's very rich you saying I have no hold on reality.

If there was a cover up I think the evidence points to it being of the fact the government knew the attacks were going to take place and certain people within it ensured that they succeeded. It's a similar plan with similar motive to the Northwoods operation.

 

[Rosy]

In breaking news sitations you hear reporters use the phrase "what appeared to be" constantly. It certainly wouldn't mean the reporter had no faith at all in what they were reporting as you suggest.

I didn't suggest the reporter had no faith. Whether he/she had faith or not doesn't make something factual though. I doubt reporters are any more qualified than people on the street to identify human flesh and bone that have been blasted several kilometres. How do they know it wasn't part of a carcass dragged out of a tip by a fox? We often find what could be easily described as appearing to be human remains in our paddocks.

 

[poppa x]

There are those who believe the Official version,
and those who want to believe a Conspiracy.

Then there are those who can't wait for the footy to start.

BTW, Harold Holt was kidnapped by a Chinese Submarine.
This very same submarine was seen in the river at Manhattan the day BEFORE 9/11.
And in the Thames a week before the London Underground Bombings.
Weird man. Some very strange happenings going on.

 

[Rosy]

BTW, Harold Holt was kidnapped by a Chinese Submarine.

Was wondering if that one would be raised.

 

[Willo]

There are those who believe the Official version,
and those who want to believe a Conspiracy.

Then there are those who can't wait for the footy to start.

BTW, Harold Holt was kidnapped by a Chinese Submarine.
This very same submarine was seen in the river at Manhattan the day BEFORE 9/11.
And in the Thames a week before the London Underground Bombings.
Weird man. Some very strange happenings going on.

There were always warnings "beware Reds under the beds" everyone knows they're to blame for just about anything that happens.
We've even got one in the Lodge now. Beware!!!