911 - what did happen?

[Quag]

Yes Mark, to yourself you can prove that the moon is made of green cheese.

And you have convinced yourself that reality is false and your imagination (or that of others as all you nonsense comes from you visiting truther sites) is real

 

[Mark F]

I don't know where the flights of 911 went or are. I don't know where the supposed passengers went or where they are today.

But I do not need to know the answers to those curious questions in order to understand that I've been deceived.

Oh I think it goes deeper than that. I genuinely think you don't want to know what happened to Flights 11, 175, 77 and 93 or any of the people who were aboard. And that isn't just because of the trend toward callousness I have often noted among Truthers. I think the real reason is, if you started to try and find out what happened to those planes and those people you would have to start asking some very uncomfortable questions - questions that would start showing the obvious holes in your account of what you think happened on 9/11.

Four big jumbo jets and hundreds of people can not and do not just disappear. If they didn't crashing where we are told they crashed then they had to go somewhere else, somewhere well away from prying eyes. The planes could never be used again so how to hide them? How to dispose of them? How many people do you need to make that happen? The planes would have been replaced with drones you say. That really means Boeing 757's and 767's converted to drones. Where did these aircraft come from? Boeings do not just appear out of thin air. How were they procured? Who paid for them and how? Who did the conversion work? The testing? Isn't that hundreds, if not thousands of people who would have to be in on at least some aspect of the plan, maybe enough to put the pieces together and blow the whistle? What about the swap? That requires the tacit cooperation of FAA and NEADS at least, plus electronic countermeasures work. Lots more complexity, lots more cost, lots more risk.

I thought you said this was the Occam's razor plan?

The passengers and crew can never be seen again which means the easiest thing to do is kill them, but then why substitute the planes with drones? Why not just crash the actual planes? That saves all the trouble already outlined and clearly keeping the passengers and crew alive just complicates the plot. Certainly they aren't concerned about killing people so why save the passengers by swapping planes with drones? Not to mention if you just crash the actual planes you don't have to figure out a way to get their remains to the alleged crash sites where they could be recovered to confirm the indicated planes had crashed there. That process of providing the necessary human remains at the crash sites is certainly going to involve more people, more cost, more logistics complication and more risk. Easier by an order-of-magnitude to just crash the real planes with the real people on board.

And if you are going to substitute drones with the purpose of completely destroying the WTC Twin Towers (but oddly not the Pentagon) why would you go through the massive risk, cost and complication of pre-rigging the towers with explosives? Why not just fill the drones with enough explosives to do the job? The whole drones + CD thing far from satisfying Occam makes absolutely no sense at all.

What is achieved by destroying any of the WTC complex anyway? I asked that question a few months back in a dedicated thread and never did get a single plausible answer. Why go to all the trouble if it adds nothing to the plot but additional risk, cost and complication?

And we haven't even got to Building 7 yet,...

We are talking the necessity of involving tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars, thousands if not tens of thousands of people and years of complex preparation work and scripting everything to happen with absolute clockwork precision - which never happens.

Yeah, I can see why you are so disinterested in finding out what really happened to the planes and the people.

OTOH we have a simple plot involving not more than about 30 or so people total, that requires little money or technical skill and can be considered a success for everything that happens after hijacked planes no matter what else happens. But 4 people with flight training crashing planes seems too complex for people.

Whatever.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes Mark, to yourself you can prove that the moon is made of green cheese.

Nah, the Moon is made of a form of basalt, iirc.

Or do I believe that because I've been deceived?

 

[Mark F]

Yes Mark, to yourself you can prove that the moon is made of green cheese.

That I'm sure was a much easier retort than actually trying to prove your claims - no thinking required, just the usual self-gratification by taking shots at others.

 

[Mark F]

Nah, the Moon is made of a form of basalt, iirc.

Or do I believe that because I've been deceived?

Well, that's the official story anyway but we all know you can't trust the official story, because it is official.

 

[ozeco41]

Yes Mark, to yourself you can prove that the moon is made of green cheese.

Nah, the Moon is made of a form of basalt, iirc.

Or do I believe that because I've been deceived?

EVERYONE! It is a lot simpler than all this.

Mark does not have to prove that the moon is made of green cheese - Mark has not claimed that it was.

However if, as the result of rigorous scientific research, there was an official position "the moon is made of green cheese" THEN that statement is the default hypothesis - it IS "proved" to the relevant rigour recognising that "proof"/"prove" et simile are not the correct words.

IF a rigorous study had "proved" (same disclaimer) that the moon is made of green cheese THEN the burden is on those who would seek to claim otherwise to "prove" that the default is wrong.

So once again from HD we see "reverse the burden of proof" AND imply "projection" onto the other party by ambiguous innuendo. And that is the structure of many of HD's posts.

Whether he believes what he posts or not is also irrelevant. I don't believe a word of it - he isn't that silly IMO. But I could be wrong on that meta-level observation.

 

[mike2810]

You guys are funny. You were utterly deceived 12 years ago, as we all were, but you still can't come to terms with that fact, largely because of the juvenile mindset of "where did the magic card go?"

Maybe I'm weird, but when I've been tricked at a magic show I am only moderately curious as to where the magic card went or how the magician did his trick, but I do know I've been tricked.

So too with 911--like the Malaysian flight, I am curious about where it is and why, but I don't need to know the answer to that question to intellectually understand that the plane is missing.

I don't know where the flights of 911 went or are. I don't know where the supposed passengers went or where they are today.

But I do not need to know the answers to those curious questions in order to understand that I've been deceived.

I have given honest answers to the OP on numerous occasions in this thread, but it's never good enough. Like children, you guys always want to know, "but how did he do it daddy?"

The events were staged, and the government and the media have covered it up for 12 years. That's all I know, and that's all I need to know. eace

As many times you state those who disagree with you have been deceived still not make it so HD.

You do at at times answer with your honest belief. I just disagree with you.

After reviewing, researching, reading on the events of 9/11, the events were not "staged", the govt. has not covered it up, and truth authors continue to write for a certain group.
I am confortable in what I have concluded is supported by evidence.

Will we know for 100% certain exactly how the towers fell, why the planes disintergrated like they did, etc.? Most likely not.

 

[mbig]

You guys are funny. You were utterly deceived 12 years ago, as we all were, but you still can't come to terms with that fact, largely because of the juvenile mindset of "where did the magic card go?"
Maybe I'm weird, but when I've been tricked at a magic show I am only moderately curious as to where the magic card went or how the magician did his trick, but I do know I've been tricked.

So too with 911--like the Malaysian flight, I am curious about where it is and why, but I don't need to know the answer to that question to intellectually understand that the plane is missing.
I don't know where the flights of 911 went or are. I don't know where the supposed passengers went or where they are today.
But I do not need to know the answers to those curious questions in order to understand that I've been deceived.

I have given honest answers to the OP on numerous occasions in this thread, but it's never good enough. Like children, you guys always want to know, "but how did he do it daddy?"

The events were staged, and the government and the media have covered it up for 12 years. That's all I know, and that's all I need to know. eace

Stil very wrong.
I can live with unceratnity.
As an Atheist in fact, we are always criticizing religionists for needing an answer/creating a god while WE can say "I just don't know" or "don't know yet".
The logical can live with the uncertainity of it all.

Malaysian Airlines is NOT analogous.
Except we CAN say with that incident it took, MINIMALLY, one pilot maybe two, with or without third party help, to carry it out.
I'm asking you for same skeletal reasoning.

You just AGAIN claimed TO know that 9/11 was "staged" and "covered up" and it IS a Fair question to ask you how many it would have taken Ballpark/Minimally, to do so.
It's Huge/thousands. (as listed)
I can live with not all details being perfect, they never are in any crime investigation. It's You who can't live with it and so Invent a Conspiracy like OTHER religionists create a god. CT has many earmarks of other religions.

The fact is you will not/Cannot answer Because any Fair estimate of what YOUR Claims entail would bust your theory.

 

[Tamborine man]

Indeed and I have very much done that over the greater than five decades of my life thus far. In order to effect such growing and progress I elicited the help of persons who had knowledge I was desirous to also understand.. I asked questions and received answers. I examined those answers against the backdrop of what I had already come to know and understand.( in essence the very definition of growing and progressing)

Sorry, no. This has nothing to do with a definition of 'growing' and 'progressing' in context with "evolve, bloom and unfold".
What you're talking about here is clearly just about the term "learning"!

Actually if its to be referred to as a debate then you are incorrect. A true debate requires that each side interact with each other. If one side refuses its more apt to refer to it as a monologue.
I prefer debates, if you prefer monologue then you may wish to abandon forums altogether and instead start a blog.

Well, i'm still not going to tell YOU what to think. I'll rather insist that YOU must do this all by yourself!

There is no possible way to grow and progress without the direct or indirect assistance of others. You did not learn to read, write or perform mathematical operations except to have been instructed in those processes.

Again you're just talking about "learning", and gaining "knowledge", which again has nothing to do with 'growth' and 'progress'!

Even in the matters concerning 9/11 you and others have continually repeated what others, notably AE911T and Gage, have expressed.

Here you have set yourself an impossible task trying to find where i have - "continually repeated what others, notably AE911T and Gage,
have expressed"!!

Why this BS nonsense??

I am trying to find out what others believe occurred. In the past I have put down what it appeared others believe occurred in this matter, even quoted passages to illustrate why it appeared so. This resulted in some exclaiming that I was putting words in their mouth and that I had gotten it wrong. Therefore I ask it to be expressed, by people who believe radically different scenarios than I. To put down in writing what they believe occurred on Sept.,11/01.

Surely you must have come across these "radically different scenarios" many times before ....no?

OK, let me give you a synopsis of my personal observations - and which haven't changed the last ten years - since i first took a serious
interest in 9/11.
We all see an alleged plane, UA175, 'glide' effortlessly into WTC2 and fully disappear. The facade looks undamaged except for the Small
'puffs' that first appear, followed immediately by explosions coming out from 3 sides of the tower. The alleged plane was either a Boeing
757 or 767, which have lengths of approx. 47 and 55 meters respectively. The tower itself measured approx. 64 x 64 meters, and mainly
consisted of open office landscape where the plane allegedly impacted. The alleged plane was flying with a speed of more than 800 Km/h.
From this speed, and having fully penetrated the tower, the plane ostensibly and miraculously now comes to an instant halt!
No "momentum" carry any part of the plane a further 17 or 9 meters to the south wall, or to the side wall for that matter! (800 Km/h.
= 222 M/s.. 22 meters would be covered in 10th of a second). The "puffs" on the alleged impact wall would have lasted longer than that!

Forgive me for not elaborating any further here. Suffice to say that i find this scenario complete madness and complete lunacy. You differ,
and that's OK with me!

Further, we see the top block of WTC1 floors starting to tilt. Subsequently the top of the tower starts to collapse. Huge clouds of dust,
debris and wall-sections are forced outside the towers footprint in all 4 directions. The top block is rapidly disintegrating. The initial weight
of the top block is rapidly minimized. The top block gets lighter and lighter - not heavier and heavier. The 70 to 75 floors tall tower still
standing untouched, gets stronger and stronger in its construction as the building gets nearer and nearer to its base.
In other words: You and your side maintain, that as the top block disintegrate and gets lighter and lighter, it can "crush" a structure
underneath itself that gets stronger and stronger!

This makes no sense to me. My sense of logic, reason, common sense and rationality tells me to give this scenario the 'finger'. Sorry, but
that's just how it is.
You differ, and that's quite OK with me!

Yours was an absolute non-answer.

True. It was just a comment.

It actually seems like my query offends you for some unfathomable reason.

Nothing ever "offends" me. I love everybody. From the most vile and evil, to the 'not too bad'. They are all in dire need of some wholesome
love, and who am i to deny them this much needed "commodity"?

Cheers

 

[Thoreau72]

Oh I think it goes deeper than that. I genuinely think you don't want to know what happened to Flights 11, 175, 77 and 93 or any of the people who were aboard. And that isn't just because of the trend toward callousness I have often noted among Truthers. I think the real reason is, if you started to try and find out what happened to those planes and those people you would have to start asking some very uncomfortable questions - questions that would start showing the obvious holes in your account of what you think happened on 9/11.

Four big jumbo jets and hundreds of people can not and do not just disappear. If they didn't crashing where we are told they crashed then they had to go somewhere else, somewhere well away from prying eyes. The planes could never be used again so how to hide them? How to dispose of them? How many people do you need to make that happen? The planes would have been replaced with drones you say. That really means Boeing 757's and 767's converted to drones. Where did these aircraft come from? Boeings do not just appear out of thin air. How were they procured? Who paid for them and how? Who did the conversion work? The testing? Isn't that hundreds, if not thousands of people who would have to be in on at least some aspect of the plan, maybe enough to put the pieces together and blow the whistle? What about the swap? That requires the tacit cooperation of FAA and NEADS at least, plus electronic countermeasures work. Lots more complexity, lots more cost, lots more risk.

I thought you said this was the Occam's razor plan?

The passengers and crew can never be seen again which means the easiest thing to do is kill them, but then why substitute the planes with drones? Why not just crash the actual planes? That saves all the trouble already outlined and clearly keeping the passengers and crew alive just complicates the plot. Certainly they aren't concerned about killing people so why save the passengers by swapping planes with drones? Not to mention if you just crash the actual planes you don't have to figure out a way to get their remains to the alleged crash sites where they could be recovered to confirm the indicated planes had crashed there. That process of providing the necessary human remains at the crash sites is certainly going to involve more people, more cost, more logistics complication and more risk. Easier by an order-of-magnitude to just crash the real planes with the real people on board.

And if you are going to substitute drones with the purpose of completely destroying the WTC Twin Towers (but oddly not the Pentagon) why would you go through the massive risk, cost and complication of pre-rigging the towers with explosives? Why not just fill the drones with enough explosives to do the job? The whole drones + CD thing far from satisfying Occam makes absolutely no sense at all.

What is achieved by destroying any of the WTC complex anyway? I asked that question a few months back in a dedicated thread and never did get a single plausible answer. Why go to all the trouble if it adds nothing to the plot but additional risk, cost and complication?

And we haven't even got to Building 7 yet,...

We are talking the necessity of involving tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars, thousands if not tens of thousands of people and years of complex preparation work and scripting everything to happen with absolute clockwork precision - which never happens.

Yeah, I can see why you are so disinterested in finding out what really happened to the planes and the people.

OTOH we have a simple plot involving not more than about 30 or so people total, that requires little money or technical skill and can be considered a success for everything that happens after hijacked planes no matter what else happens. But 4 people with flight training crashing planes seems too complex for people.

Whatever.

4 jets cannot just disappear?

Maybe you don't keep up with world news, but 1 has been disappeared for about 10 days now.

And it's clear you have not informed yourself about the details of 11 September. Since Day One, as reported in The Boston Globe, there has been much controversy about just which gate AA11 departed from.

And at Newark there is circumstantial evidence that UA93's gate assignment was controversial.

So, it cannot be proved that any of those flights boarded or departed. 77 is also controversial in that regard.

 

[Thoreau72]

That I'm sure was a much easier retort than actually trying to prove your claims - no thinking required, just the usual self-gratification by taking shots at others.

Silly posts inspire silly replies. :lol:

 

[Thoreau72]

Stil very wrong.
I can live with unceratnity.
As an Atheist in fact, we are always criticizing religionists for needing an answer/creating a god while WE can say "I just don't know" or "don't know yet".
The logical can live with the uncertainity of it all.

Malaysian Airlines is NOT analogous.
Except we CAN say with that incident it took, MINIMALLY, one pilot maybe two, with or without third party help, to carry it out.
I'm asking you for same skeletal reasoning.

You just AGAIN claimed TO know that 9/11 was "staged" and "covered up" and it IS a Fair question to ask you how many it would have taken Ballpark/Minimally, to do so.
It's Huge/thousands. (as listed)
I can live with not all details being perfect, they never are in any crime investigation. It's You who can't live with it and so Invent a Conspiracy like OTHER religionists create a god. CT has many earmarks of other religions.

The fact is you will not/Cannot answer Because any Fair estimate of what YOUR Claims entail would bust your theory.

I am certain that the events of the day were staged by someone OTHER THAN 19 arabs with box cutters because the vast preponderance of the evidence contradicts that crazy theory. It is an impossible story, because all the evidence works against it.

No Boeings at Shanksville and Pentagon. Collapses of buildings that were impossible under the rules of physics.

We were deceived. I understand it, you do not. It's cool, don't worry, be happy. eace

 

[Mark F]

4 jets cannot just disappear?

Maybe you don't keep up with world news, but 1 has been disappeared for about 10 days now.

And it's clear you have not informed yourself about the details of 11 September. Since Day One, as reported in The Boston Globe, there has been much controversy about just which gate AA11 departed from.

And at Newark there is circumstantial evidence that UA93's gate assignment was controversial.

So, it cannot be proved that any of those flights boarded or departed. 77 is also controversial in that regard.

Are you saying MA370 will never be found? It did go missing over the ocean.

The rest is just the usual Truther cherry-picking - not exactly a prima facie case. So when are you going to provide that proof you keep talking about but never pony up?

 

[Thoreau72]

Are you saying MA370 will never be found? It did go missing over the ocean.

The rest is just the usual Truther cherry-picking - not exactly a prima facie case. So when are you going to provide that proof you keep talking about but never pony up?

No Mark, I'm saying that a jet has been missing, disappeared, for 10 days.

But more relevant to 911 is that there has always been controversy about whether those 4 departed at all. It cannot be proved if they departed, from where they departed, and just who was onboard if they did depart. The government and media cannot prove it, and neither can you.

 

[Mark F]

No Mark, I'm saying that a jet has been missing, disappeared, for 10 days.

Hardly unique.

But more relevant to 911 is that there has always been controversy about whether those 4 departed at all.

Not true.

It cannot be proved if they departed, from where they departed, and just who was onboard if they did depart. The government and media cannot prove it, and neither can you.

Also not true.

 

[Thoreau72]

Those are facts Mark, and true, but you yourself are simply unaware of those facts.

Or possibly (probably?) just in denial of those facts.

 

[mike2810]

No Mark, I'm saying that a jet has been missing, disappeared, for 10 days.

But more relevant to 911 is that there has always been controversy about whether those 4 departed at all. It cannot be proved if they departed, from where they departed, and just who was onboard if they did depart. The government and media cannot prove it, and neither can you.

Yet you cannot prove they did not depart. Can you?

Its the old what if game. Yet, guess if we ignore all the radio comm with the towers, flight controllers, radar, etc.. Then yes, HD, no one can prove for 100% certain the planes on 9/11 departed. Can anyone prove for 100% that someone exists? What if its all just a simulation (matrix):mrgreen:?

 

[Thoreau72]

Yet you cannot prove they did not depart. Can you?

Its the old what if game. Yet, guess if we ignore all the radio comm with the towers, flight controllers, radar, etc.. Then yes, HD, no one can prove for 100% certain the planes on 9/11 departed. Can anyone prove for 100% that someone exists? What if its all just a simulation (matrix):mrgreen:?

Yep--I cannot prove it didn't depart, and you can't prove it did depart. Such a conundrum, eh Mike?

Back to the preponderance of the evidence.

 

[mike2810]

Yep--I cannot prove it didn't depart, and you can't prove it did depart. Such a conundrum, eh Mike?

Back to the preponderance of the evidence.

Yep. interesting that when looking at the evidence we come to different conclusions. I would bet that is a result of what sources are used.

 

[Thoreau72]

Yep. interesting that when looking at the evidence we come to different conclusions. I would bet that is a result of what sources are used.

I would bet that it is a result of my having defended that bright and shining lie for 4 years.

 

[mike2810]

I would bet that it is a result of my having defended that bright and shining lie for 4 years.

we will agree to disagree HD. Your free to believe what you want. That is what is great about the USA.

 

[Quag]

Yep--I cannot prove it didn't depart, and you can't prove it did depart. Such a conundrum, eh Mike?

Back to the preponderance of the evidence.

Preponderance of evidence leaves no other conclusion than that the plane departed as stated.
making up wild Ct based on your distrust of govt is not evidence

 

[Scott]

This video pretty much shows what the alternate story is.

September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)
September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL) - YouTube


The fact that the craft that hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757 is about the only important thing not covered in that video.

Flight 77 3d sim test
(5th picture from top)


Here's some more stuff.

Explosives Technician - Loader - AE911Truth.org
Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician - Loader - AE911Truth.org - YouTube

The Death of Controlled Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko after Speaking about 9/11 WTC 7 Building 7
The Death of Controlled Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko after Speaking about 9/11 WTC 7 Building 7 - YouTube

ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR 911 TRUTH (full unreleased version)
ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR 911 TRUTH (full unreleased version) - YouTube

Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org
Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org - YouTube


These videos do a good job of explaining the government's motives for planning and carrying out the 9/11 attacks.
?9/11 False Flag Conspiracy - Finally Solved (Names, Connections, Motives) - YouTube
The New American Century - Watch Free Documentary Online


If people watch the above and experience cognitive dissonance and go into denial, they should watch this video.

Why Can't They See The Truth? Psychologists Help 9 11 Truth Deniers
Why Can't They See The Truth? Psychologists Help 9 11 Truth Deniers - YouTube


If the YouTube links don't work, do YouTube searches on the titles.

 

[Thoreau72]

Outstanding observations by the several psychologists!

Yes, cognitive dissonance is usually a defense mechanism and involuntary reaction.

 

[ozeco41]

Outstanding observations by the several psychologists!

Yes, cognitive dissonance is usually a defense mechanism and involuntary reaction.

The perils of a tilted playing field.

I will resist the temptation to refer to "rushing in" where angelic beings would be "more prudent"



Other areas which I suggest debunkers should avoid include:

1) Reliance on "peer reviewed" OR "published".

2) References to Occam

3) More to come if I think fast enough :3oops: