911 Truth Movement

[Disco08]

Nah, you're not included as one of those guys. They know who they are. I am surprised that you find anything about these events or the debate surrounding them entertaining though.

Also, I just added a poll out of interest.

 

[Azza]

Thanks for the military history lesson Az. It was a pretty flippant line TBO. Macarthur was a renowned nut so I thought I might get a laugh, god knows this thread needs one.

Actually I was guilty of more than a bit of revisionism there. My bad. MacArthur is a bit of a pet hate of mine. I can't stand the way he mouthed off about our blokes in New Guinea while he was very comfortablly ensconced in Melbourne.

 

[Rosy]

Nah, you're not included as one of those guys. They know who they are. I am surprised that you find anything about these events or the debate surrounding them entertaining though.

There's a difference in finding the debate entertaining and finding anything about the events entertaining. You are way off the mark if you assume the latter.

 

[evo]

It reminds me of some of the Christianity discussions too.

Except this time you're the Christian. j/k, carry on.

 

[Azza]

It remind me of the religious discussion. When you don't have a clue either way it's fun to sit back and watch how others go about putting their cases across.

I'm with you Rosy. That Christianity thread's a beauty. Kudos to the participants.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

No record of any interview exists in the OR. That's the point.

If you take the newpaper reports at face value they clearly contradict the OR. Whether you choose to do that or not is obviously up to you.

You've lost me here. What does the newspaper report contradict?

I'm glad you find it entertaining though. I find it saddening but each to their own. What puzzles me though is the reluctance of some people to even consider that the OR is wrong and their willingness to accept it blindly. It seems any suggestion of error or contradiction is met with derision and for the life of me I can't figure out why you guys would be such staunch supporters of it.

This is not what is happening here. Skepticism is healthy in my opinion. I nearly joined the Australian Skeptics but you have to be invited. (I wonder what James Randi would make of all this?) As I have pointed out before I haven't seen too many people here being "staunch supporters" of the official report, I doubt most have read it. What they have done is ask those who list "evidence" to quantify and reference it, in what way is that blind acceptance?

 

[Azza]

If he wasn't in the know, why didn't he take up his post as one of the two men who could order the shootdown of a hijacked plane instead of sitting in a classroom where he was useless for nearly half an hour? If you wanted to let the plan succeed you couldn't plan a better reaction. His inactivity basically crippled the response as testified by those enacting it. Why is it he also claimed twice that he saw the footage of the first place hitting the tower when that footage hadn't been released yet? It all stinks if you ask me.

Yeah, I know Disco. There's a lot of odd stuff around 911. But surely if Bush knew what was going on he'd have prepared to at least look like he was responding properly? Having said that I don't know why an aide or someone didn't take him in hand and get him off to a control centre or something.

 

[Disco08]

You've lost me here. What does the newspaper report contradict?
This is not what is happening here. Skepticism is healthy in my opinion. I nearly joined the Australian Skeptics but you have to be invited. (I wonder what James Randi would make of all this?) As I have pointed out before I haven't seen too many people here being "staunch supporters" of the official report, I doubt most have read it. What they have done is ask those who list "evidence" to quantify and reference it, in what way is that blind acceptance?

The official report states no human remains were found outside the 70 acre area surrounding the crash site, based on the coroner's report. It makes no attempt at all to confirm this fact through eyewitness testimony.

A couple of times you've characterised this argument as the OR vs crackpot conspiracy theorists. To me that's as staunch (and irrational) as you can get in this debate.

Where did you point that oout before BTW?

Except this time you're the Christian. j/k, carry on.

;D

There's a difference in finding the debate entertaining and finding anything about the events entertaining. You are way off the mark if you assume the latter.

I think this deserves to be a genuine and serious debate. I think most of us are trying to treat it that way. Saying you find the way some of us are expressing our opinion is "entertaining" in a fairly condescending manner just seems to me to be mocking that.

 

[Rosy]

I think this deserves to be a genuine and serious debate. I think most of us are trying to treat it that way. Saying you find the way some of us are expressing our opinion is "entertaining" in a fairly condescending manner just seems to me to be mocking that.

Gee you're getting a bit precious Disco. You've made several incorrect claims about me. To suggest being entertained equates to condescending and mocking is yet another myth.

 

[Disco08]

This is the post I originally responded to:

I make no claims to knowing the facts on this topic but I've got to admit the lengths some go to to support the conspiracy claims, and use dodgy claims as evidence, is quite entertaining. It would take far more that anything said on this thread to convince me either way.

I assume, given it's just me and Harry mainly denying the OR that you're referring to me at least in part. If you thnk my posting is so poor in regard to using dodgy evidence and supporting conspiracy claims through less than reasonable means I'm disappointed. Like I said, I think this topic deserves the utmost respect. There are many families out there who still don't feel they've been given a proper explanation as to the deaths of their loved ones and want to see a proper investigation into the events. I support that position. I've tried very hard to post in a manner consistent with that. In that context I find your amusement at my efforts condescending and mocking. It may be precious IYO but I'm not going to apologise for taking the discussion seriously and expecting others to do the same.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

 

[Disco08]

Yeah, I know Disco. There's a lot of odd stuff around 911. But surely if Bush knew what was going on he'd have prepared to at least look like he was responding properly? Having said that I don't know why an aide or someone didn't take him in hand and get him off to a control centre or something.

I think the removal of commercial pilots' ability to defend themselves adequately and the change in shootdown protocal to make he and Cheney the sole people able to stop the incoming attacks is very pertinent in regard to Bush's response. Any sane person, with the knowledge that only they and one other person could stop further attacks (without knowledge of what was happening he couldn't have had any idea how many more planes might have been heading towards targets or how many had already been intercepted by F-16's awaiting the green light to bring them down, especially given he'd already stated he knew the first plane had already crashed into WTC1) would have moved as quickly as possible to get in a position to do just that. As it was, Bush sat motionless (some psychologsts and eyewitnesses say looking very nervous) for nearly half an hour.

I'd love to see a rational explanation of this evidence. This isn't a rhetorical question. I've thought about it but can't imagine one.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The official report states no human remains were found outside the 70 acre area surrounding the crash site, based on the coroner's report. It makes no attempt at all to confirm this fact through eyewitness testimony.

A couple of times you've characterised this argument as the OR vs crackpot conspiracy theorists. To me that's as staunch (and irrational) as you can get in this debate.

Where did you point that oout before BTW?

Nope I have specifically stated that dogmatism is anathema to me. I don't accept that the argument is easily defined as one dogma versus another. I have even conceded that a cover-up of Bush's incompetence wouldn't surprise me. On the flight 93 debris there is nothing in the article that contradicts the report. It is vague about where the locals said they saw what looked like human remains. It mentions debris "miles away" and at Indian Lake. It certainly doesn't say that debris at Indian Lake included the "human remains". I don't quite understand why you are suggesting that the article says something that it clearly doesn't.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

A couple of times you've characterised this argument as the OR vs crackpot conspiracy theorists. To me that's as staunch (and irrational) as you can get in this debate.

Where did you point that oout before BTW?

Here:

You can insist that, but it sets up a false dichotomy. I'm not defending the OR, I simply don't think the conspiracy story is credible, while this might seem tacit support for OR I am anything but dogmatic.

And here:

Glad we've stopped the apologist crap, man I hate labels. It is lazy and foolish to attempt to categorise people into simply defined groups.

The second quote may seem less relevant but it's me railing against being defined as an OR apologist.

 

[Disco08]

OK sorry. I mssed a few posts this morning. So, why are you not defending the OR?

Nope I have specifically stated that dogmatism is anathema to me. I don't accept that the argument is easily defined as one dogma versus another. I have even conceded that a cover-up of Bush's incompetence wouldn't surprise me. On the flight 93 debris there is nothing in the article that contradicts the report. It is vague about where the locals said they saw what looked like human remains. It mentions debris "miles away" and at Indian Lake. It certainly doesn't say that debris at Indian Lake included the "human remains". I don't quite understand why you are suggesting that the article says something that it clearly doesn't.

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.

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.

Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene.

Note how far away Shanksville is. Certainly outside the immediate 70 acre radius of the crash site. You also have multiple eyewitness reports of debris falling from the sky at the time of the crash. This isn't consistent with paper debris floating 8 miles on the breeze which I've read was 9mph. I haven't been able to confirm that though. Certainly small pieces of paper wouldn't have remained alight that long.

The OR, as I said, states no human remains were found outside the 70 acre area of the crash site and that only small paper debris was found at the sites further afield. It's obviously contradicted by all these reports.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

OK sorry. I mssed a few posts this morning. So, why are you not defending the OR?

No harm, no foul.

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.

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.

According to the report some of which I believe is based on the flight recorder the plane crashed at close to 890kph, what rpm do you imagine the engines were doing?

Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene.

Note how far away Shanksville is. Certainly outside the immediate 70 acre radius of the crash site. You also have multiple eyewitness reports of debris falling from the sky at the time of the crash. This isn't consistent with paper debris floating 8 miles on the breeze which I've read was 9mph. I haven't been able to confirm that though. Certainly small pieces of paper wouldn't have remained alight that long.

The OR, as I said, states no human remains were found outside the 70 acre area of the crash site and that only small paper debris was found at the sites further afield. It's obviously contradicted by all these reports.

There is no expert corroboration for the sighting of human remains. If the coroner and the investigators didn't find it that far away why do you doubt them? It doesn't say that only small paper debris was found further afield it only says this about the debris found 8 miles away. In terms of confetti, if a meteorite the size of a plane crashed into the earth at close to 890kph how big would the crater be? What size the debris field? Would people nearby see debris raining down?

 

[Rosy]

This is the post I originally responded to:

I assume, given it's just me and Harry mainly denying the OR that you're referring to me at least in part. If you thnk my posting is so poor in regard to using dodgy evidence and supporting conspiracy claims through less than reasonable means I'm disappointed.

I didn't say your posting was "poor". I said I found the thread "entertaining". Yes I think there have been some questionable claims to support a stance, as evidenced by others posting information otherwise and the resulting retractions, but it's all out there no matter what side you wish to take. If you want to be disappointed then go for it but is seems to me you're playing a bit of a victim card to take it so personally. What we consider entertaining is a very personal thing and not something we should judge others on.

What do you consider "less than reasonable means"? It's not a phrase I've mentioned so I'm not sure why you're disappointed based on that. I think it's as reasonable to post myths and claims as it is for others to question them. As to dodgy haven't you admitted yourself that you haven't checked some of the claims you've posted when others have pointed out the inconsistencies?

 

[Disco08]

No harm, no foul.
According to the report some of which I believe is based on the flight recorder the plane crashed at close to 890kph, what rpm do you imagine the engines were doing?

There is no expert corroboration for the sighting of human remains. If the coroner and the investigators didn't find it that far away why do you doubt them? It doesn't say that only small paper debris was found further afield it only says this about the debris found 8 miles away. In terms of confetti, if a meteorite the size of a plane crashed into the earth at close to 890kph how big would the crater be? What size the debris field? Would people nearby see debris raining down?

What's that about moving the goalposts? Wasn't the point of contention whether or not the OR was contradicted by the news reports? Do you admit that to be the case now?

The investigators based their report entirely on the coroner's findings as far as I can tell. If I was investigating I'd talk to the eyewitnesses as well.

I'm not physcist but I watch a lot of ACI. I've never seen a plane crash straight down, leave a large crater and leave a debris field 8 miles wide. If you think that's a plausible explanation, maybe you can find some similar crashes to compare this one to.

You may say you're not defending the OR KR, but you've certainly spent plenty of time defending it. Can I ask again why you're not defending it?

http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/pr/2005/092705_9105.shtml "Mr. Bellone is being charged with grand larceny, criminal impersonation and possession of stolen property.

Mr. Bellone was brought to the attention of the Fire Department last year after several complaints were made from across the country regarding the activities of the TRAC Team, a non-profit organization of which he is the CEO. Mr. Bellone travels around the country selling his book and displaying artifacts that he maintains to be from the World Trade Center site.

“The department commends the outstanding investigative efforts of the Fire Marshals for their diligence in apprehending Mr. Bellone,” said Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta."
There is no evidence other than his own word that he was involved in the way he describes. His word seems not be his bond. If he is the only corroborator of DiMasi's story, then that too is on shaky ground wouldn't you say?

So his crime was possession of an apparently stolen mask, tank, harness and regulator. I'd like to know if they were used by him at the time and not returned or whether they were stolen from a truck or whatever. He sounds like an opportunist but I don't see that as a reason to discount his testimony altogether.

 

[Disco08]

I didn't say your posting was "poor". I said I found the thread "entertaining". Yes I think there have been some questionable claims to support a stance, as evidenced by others posting information otherwise and the resulting retractions, but it's all out there no matter what side you wish to take. If you want to be disappointed then go for it but is seems to me you're playing a bit of a victim card to take it so personally. What we consider entertaining is a very personal thing and not something we should judge others on.

What do you consider "less than reasonable means"? It's not a phrase I've mentioned so I'm not sure why you're disappointed based on that. I think it's as reasonable to post myths and claims as it is for others to question them. As to dodgy haven't you admitted yourself that you haven't checked some of the claims you've posted when others have pointed out the inconsistencies?

There's a difference between an honest mistake and dodgy. Less than reasonable means refers to "the lengths some people go to defend conspiracy theories".

Anyway, no big deal. I made my point and am happy to leave it at that so we can concentrate on the topic.

 

[Harry]

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?

http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20100305_911_whistleblowers.htm

all nutters anyway so don't bother reading. just google some more conspiracy theories you can list, we're all enjoying the various theories out there.

 

[Scoop]

I'm not physcist but I watch a lot of ACI. I've never seen a plane crash straight down, leave a large crater and leave a debris field 8 miles wide. If you think that's a plausible explanation, maybe you can find some similar crashes to compare this one to.

That's something I have struggled with too.

For me, too many things happened more than once on the one day, that had never occured before. Ever.