9-11: Who did it?[W:1493]

Mark F · Aug 11, 2015

GunFora said:
Wrong. I never believed it was an inside job. Only recently did I start to question it.

OK then, why did you start to question it?

Because you were told the entry hole in the Pentagon was too small and too symmetrical? Only problem of course is that was the wrong hole - the exit hole in C-Ring, not the entry hole in E-Ring.

It makes a rather big difference.

Because you were told that in aerial photographs of the Shanksville crash site there is no clearly identifiable aircraft wreckage or human remains? But of course there is a lot more evidence to look at than just aerial photographs isn't there? Don't let people lead you to micro-focus on the details so much that you miss the big picture. That is how conspiracy theory thrives.

gdgyva · Aug 11, 2015

GunFora said:
There are probably hundreds of threads on this. Let me start by saying that I am not a conspiracy theorist at all and never have been. However, there are many questions that have been left unanswered.

1. Flight 93 allegedly crashed in Shanksville, PA.
Q. Why were there no bodies or luggage at the "crash site"?
Q. Why was there no plane wreckage at the "crash site"?

2. An alleged plane hits the Pentagon.
Q. Why was there a near perfectly round hole in the outer wall with no wing sections or tail section on the ground?

i was in crystal city that morning

it was a beautiful day.....i wasnt due in to work till much later, and had dropped a friend off at DCA (reagan national now)

planes fly all around that area, but never directly over where i was.....and it was low....maybe 500ft

seemed like just a minute or two after is when i could see the smoke....since i was headed towards the pentagon trying to get back on 395s towards springfield

i was listening to the news, as they were talking about the towers

i never dreamed that they would or could hit the pentagon also

i saw the plane.....i saw the smoke.....and later i viewed the damage......

you can say whatever you want or like.....but a plane crashed there that day, whether you want to believe it or not

Bob0627 · Aug 11, 2015

Mark F said:
Perhaps so you can explain why, without evidence, you seem to always automatically assume Y just because someone tied to da gubmint says it was X, then continue to believe it was Y even when all the evidence says it was X.

You are joking right? Without evidence? I posted the EVIDENCE fake one and it's EVIDENCE you're very familiar with. It's called LIES. It's also not called "da gubmint", it's called the US government. Ridiculing me about posting FACTS that most everyone is aware of, including YOU, isn't going to make you sound intelligent. It only serves to make YOU sound ridiculous and an obvious fake.

That isn't rational, that's ideological, practiced with a religious devotion and ideology is the Chimpanzee part of the brain at work. Nobody looks good flinging poop.

And neither do you. FACTS aren't ideological, they are simply FACTS. Religious devotion to a government that lies all the time is the stuff of simian mentality and totally irrational, you're absolutely right about that.

Bob0627 · Aug 11, 2015

GunFora said:
Wrong. I never believed it was an inside job.

Neither did I at first, until I learned the facts and that took about 3+ years following 9/11. It was quite an eye opening experience despite that I never found the US government credible well before 2001. It is after all, mostly comprised of politicians and other self-serving profiteers.

Only recently did I start to question it.

And what made you start to question it?

Thoreau72 · Aug 11, 2015

GunFora said:
Do you really believe the ground just swallowed a 757 whole? Plane, engines, passengers, luggage etc....it just doesn't seem plausible to me.

It is neither plausible nor possible that it was swallowed by the ground. Sure, I'll give them 10 feet or so, but the airplane is way longer than that.

Of Coroner Miller's 2 statements on the subject, his first was truthful and his second was a lie. The only reason he told the lie was to satisfy certain federal agents. They were quite persuasive with him, and he knew that he better play the game. :mrgreen:

Mark F · Aug 11, 2015

Bob0627 said:
You are joking right? Without evidence? I posted the EVIDENCE fake one and it's EVIDENCE you're very familiar with. It's called LIES. It's also not called "da gubmint", it's called the US government. Ridiculing me about posting FACTS that most everyone is aware of, including YOU, isn't going to make you sound intelligent. It only serves to make YOU sound ridiculous and an obvious fake.

And neither do you. FACTS aren't ideological, they are simply FACTS. Religious devotion to a government that lies all the time is the stuff of simian mentality and totally irrational, you're absolutely right about that.

Again, see my signature. You sound just like that.

Mark F · Aug 11, 2015

Henry David said:
It is neither plausible nor possible that it was swallowed by the ground. Sure, I'll give them 10 feet or so, but the airplane is way longer than that.

What HD imagines the Shanskville crash site should have looked like.

Thoreau72 · Aug 11, 2015

gdgyva said:
i was in crystal city that morning

it was a beautiful day.....i wasnt due in to work till much later, and had dropped a friend off at DCA (reagan national now)

planes fly all around that area, but never directly over where i was.....and it was low....maybe 500ft

seemed like just a minute or two after is when i could see the smoke....since i was headed towards the pentagon trying to get back on 395s towards springfield

i was listening to the news, as they were talking about the towers

i never dreamed that they would or could hit the pentagon also

i saw the plane.....i saw the smoke.....and later i viewed the damage......

you can say whatever you want or like.....but a plane crashed there that day, whether you want to believe it or not

You saw AN airplane that day. You and a pile of others too. About a dozen happened to be at a gas station with a good view of the area. They all saw that plane and were certain of where it flew reference some Navy buildings nearby. And guess what? The path that the airplane they all saw was flying DID NOT AGREE with the path necessary to strike the building where it was struck, the path partially defined by the knocked down light poles.

Point being that the airplane you saw was a low level flyby so that people like you would say "but I saw an airplane". It was part of the magnificent deception.

It worked! :mrgreen:

Mark F · Aug 11, 2015

Henry David said:
You saw AN airplane that day. You and a pile of others too. About a dozen happened to be at a gas station with a good view of the area. They all saw that plane and were certain of where it flew reference some Navy buildings nearby. And guess what? The path that the airplane they all saw was flying DID NOT AGREE with the path necessary to strike the building where it was struck, the path partially defined by the knocked down light poles.

Oh dear God he's pulling out that CIT crap.

Bob0627 · Aug 11, 2015

Mark F said:
Again, see my signature. You sound just like that.

So you're saying those quotes are my invention then? They are not the facts? The US government does not lie? That's not a fact either? What planet are you from?

Mark F · Aug 11, 2015

Bob0627 said:
So you're saying those quotes are my invention then? They are not the facts? The US government does not lie? That's not a fact either? What planet are you from?

Unlike you I do not fall for the false global generalization. It is a weak-minded approach.

ballantine · Aug 11, 2015

Mark F said:
Unlike you I do not fall for the false global generalization.

It is not false, and it is not a generalization. It is a fact in evidence. It has been demonstrated repeatedly and consistently ever since 1953, and probably before that.

It is a weak-minded approach.

No, it is a realistic approach. Anyone who denies that the US government lied about the Kennedy assassination and is still lying about it is a total and complete fool. Two pepperonis short of a pizza.

This government lies to protect its own interests, and many times its interests do not include you.

mike2810 · Aug 11, 2015

Thought this thread was about 9/11 and who did it. Some moving the goal post with the JFK assassination. Those who believe some of the alternative explanations are two tacos short of a combo plate. :mrgreen:

Econ4every1 · Aug 11, 2015

Here is a plane slamming into a wall at 500mph. Can anyone tell me where the pieces went? Can you imagine a body lying around after something like this?

The fact that a 777 is larger only adds energy to the crash and causes greater destruction...

Bob0627 · Aug 11, 2015

Mark F said:
Unlike you I do not fall for the false global generalization. It is a weak-minded approach.

So which is it then? You failed to answer any of my questions, just more drivel, the usual "false global generalization" mantra from you. There's nothing I posted that's not fact and the truth and your failure to demonstrate otherwise is your acknowledgement that I'm 100% correct.

Fledermaus · Aug 11, 2015

ballantine said:
It is not false, and it is not a generalization. It is a fact in evidence. It has been demonstrated repeatedly and consistently ever since 1953, and probably before that.

No, it is a realistic approach. Anyone who denies that the US government lied about the Kennedy assassination and is still lying about it is a total and complete fool. Two pepperonis short of a pizza.

This government lies to protect its own interests, and many times its interests do not include you.

SO, the EVIDENCE the US government is behind 9/11 is ______________________________________________________________

Econ4every1 · Aug 11, 2015

GunFora said:
There are probably hundreds of threads on this. Let me start by saying that I am not a conspiracy theorist at all and never have been. However, there are many questions that have been left unanswered.

1. Flight 93 allegedly crashed in Shanksville, PA.
Q. Why were there no bodies or luggage at the "crash site"?
Q. Why was there no plane wreckage at the "crash site"?

2. An alleged plane hits the Pentagon.
Q. Why was there a near perfectly round hole in the outer wall with no wing sections or tail section on the ground?

Pentagon crash...

The answer is simple. The plane hit the ground right before it hit the wall tearing the engines and wings off and collapsing the tail leaving just the fuselage to travel on through the wall.

No bodies.....

Bodies are fragile bags of mostly water, when they are subjected to the kinds of forces that happened during the pentagon crash, well it's gruesome. Think deer hit square by a tractor trailer at 70+. If hit square on, there isn't much left....

This video demonstrates what happens when you hit living things at high speeds (deer hit by Porsche racecar). What's left is basically liquid. Now imagine adding a huge fireball... The reasons there isn't anything left should now be coming into focus.

Mark F · Aug 11, 2015

ballantine said:
It is not false, and it is not a generalization. It is a fact in evidence. It has been demonstrated repeatedly and consistently ever since 1953, and probably before that.

No, it is a realistic approach. Anyone who denies that the US government lied about the Kennedy assassination and is still lying about it is a total and complete fool. Two pepperonis short of a pizza.

This government lies to protect its own interests, and many times its interests do not include you.

The comments were specific to Bob. I don't even know who you are or what you are on about. Please do pay attention if you wish to participate.

Mark F · Aug 11, 2015

Bob0627 said:
So which is it then? You failed to answer any of my questions, just more drivel, the usual "false global generalization" mantra from you. There's nothing I posted that's not fact and the truth and your failure to demonstrate otherwise is your acknowledgement that I'm 100% correct.

I didn't fail to answer anything. There was nothing to answer. You and I are not having the same conversation, operating at the same level.

To you if the government (or people working for it more precisely) lied once = always lies. You can't tell the difference. That inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality is a constant theme throughout your posts with your frequent retort to the FGG. Even when it is pointed out to you that you are doing it and you are wrong you still do it anyway. As you read this no doubt all you can hear in your head is the chirping of Crickets as all of this goes right past you.

You don't even know what I'm on about.

I wonder if da gubmint came out and said tomorrow that "yes indeed 9/11 was an inside job - we planned the whole thing" if you would have to switch gears and claim it was really terrorists because da gubmint always lies.

Bob0627 · Aug 11, 2015

Mark F said:
I didn't fail to answer anything. There was nothing to answer.

Translation, you didn't want to answer because you could not possibly claim those quotes are not factual and not true and that the US government does not have a very long history of lies.

You and I are not having the same conversation, operating at the same level.

I couldn't agree more.

To you if the government (or people working for it more precisely) lied once = always lies.

And that's a perfect example of why we are not operating on the same level. You make claims that are generally filled with red herrings. Lied once??? Are you insane? You actually believe the US government only lied once and that I distrust the US government based on one lie?

You can't tell the difference.

The difference between what? One lie versus a trail of constant lies? Where do you get your act from? If you're trying to be serious, it really isn't working.

That inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality is a constant theme throughout your posts with your frequent retort to the FGG.

Sorry, I have no clue what FGG means. So tell me though which part is fantasy, is it that the US government lies or is it your pretend fantasy that I believe a one time lie = always lies?

Even when it is pointed out to you that you are doing it and you are wrong you still do it anyway.

You haven't pointed out anything to me so far that makes any sense. However, you did expose your red herring claim quite glaringly.

You don't even know what I'm on about.

Sorry but I've known what you're on about practically from the first post of yours that I read in this forum. And you are consistent.

I wonder if da gubmint came out and said tomorrow that "yes indeed 9/11 was an inside job - we planned the whole thing" if you would have to switch gears and claim it was really terrorists because da gubmint always lies.

I was going to respond to that silly nonsense but I believe it would have resulted in some kind of forum sanction, so I'll just leave it alone.

ballantine · Aug 11, 2015

Mark F said:
The comments were specific to Bob. I don't even know who you are or what you are on about. Please do pay attention if you wish to participate.

Excuse me?

You're in no position to tell me what to do.

This is a public forum, mister.

Excuse you.

Fledermaus · Aug 12, 2015

ballantine said:
Excuse me?

You're in no position to tell me what to do.

This is a public forum, mister.

Excuse you.

So, who do YOU believe carried out the attacks?

Quag · Aug 12, 2015

Mark F said:
I didn't fail to answer anything. There was nothing to answer. You and I are not having the same conversation, operating at the same level.

To you if the government (or people working for it more precisely) lied once = always lies. You can't tell the difference. That inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality is a constant theme throughout your posts with your frequent retort to the FGG. Even when it is pointed out to you that you are doing it and you are wrong you still do it anyway. As you read this no doubt all you can hear in your head is the chirping of Crickets as all of this goes right past you.

You don't even know what I'm on about.

I wonder if da gubmint came out and said tomorrow that "yes indeed 9/11 was an inside job - we planned the whole thing" if you would have to switch gears and claim it was really terrorists because da gubmint always lies.

Bolded doesnt work the opposite way for him however, he ignores all the lies truthers tell. Apparently the ends justifies the means for them.

Mark F · Aug 12, 2015

Quag said:
Bolded doesnt work the opposite way for him however, he ignores all the lies truthers tell. Apparently the ends justifies the means for them.

Indeed, there is a distinct double standard at play.

If the government (or more accurately a government official or employee) lies or says something that later proves false (not the same thing) that means they always lie.

OTOH - When the CT side gets it wrong - even when they get it way wrong - we don't see Bob stepping in to call them out. Lies, half-truths, deceptions and fabrications on the CT side are apparently no problem as they serve the greater purpose of railing against the government (from behind a keyboard).

Mark F · Aug 12, 2015

ballantine said:
Excuse me?

You're in no position to tell me what to do.

This is a public forum, mister.

Excuse you.

Well, since you responded to a post that was not addressed to you with a bunch of blather than had nothing to do with what I posted yes, yes I do have the right to tell you to get with the program or jog on.

If you are going to join a conversation it behooves you to at least understand what is being discussed wouldn't you say?

9-11: Who did it?[W:1493]

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency