OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

[PW4000]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

As I'm sure you know, they always dismiss it as a waste of money because the fake investigations fed them all they need and want to know.

Yes, indeed. No matter how much the 911 Omission Report contradicts the facts as outlined by those who participated in the 911 "response" - they will always delude themselves, not because they want to be deluded, but because they need (desperately) to continue the three ring "circus." Therefore, you will never (not in a million years or more) get one of these official storytellers to answer the questions I just put forth - not ever. They will always run and hide from such questions because there are no good answers for the official blunder called the Official 911 Commission Report.

Like for example, this little gem:

At 8:37:52, Boston Center contacts NEADS which the 911 Commission Report says was "the first notification given to the military at any level" that American 11 had been highjacked. (see 911 Commission Report at pg. 20 and par. 2)

Well, that's just one of many 911 Omission Report lies told to the American People. How do we know? Here's the proof straight from the horses mouth.

Contradiction #1 starts at 0:20 through 1:00:


In the full video above, starting at 0:20 seconds through 1:00 minute, Lt. Col. Dan Nash, says that Otis received the first call directly from the FAA about American 11. The interviewer stops Lt. Co. Nash, and even confirms that Otis received that call direct from the FAA and Lt. Col. Nash, goes on to confirm how that was "odd." Yet, the 911 Omission Report clearly says (above) that the very first call about American 11 being a possible hijack from the FAA went to NEADS, not to Otis direct. So, who is lying? Do you trust Lt. Col. Dan Nash, or do you trust the authors of the 911CR?

But, that's just the beginning of direct contradictions from Lt. Col. Dan Nash. It gets even worse. On the one hand, he says that no sooner than they established battle stations they got the visual signal to scramble. On the other hand he says the following: (Contradiction #2 starts at 3:21 through 3:32.)

"We were informed that there was a possible hijacking of American 11; we were given an ALTITUDE and a HEADING to fly to make an intercept I guess."

Really? Because that statement directly contradicts 911CR pg. 20 par. 6 and 7, which clearly states the following:

Thus, NEADS had neither heading nor altitude to give the pilots for the intercept because the hijackers had allegedly turned off the transponder. Once again, Mineta, had not yet cleared U.S. airspace at 8:46. Therefore, the north eastern seaboard was filled with civilian aircraft, especially commercial aircraft operating under FAA Part 121 rules, creating a huge (massive) HUD problem for the F-15s in civilian airspace at intercept throttle settings and speeds.

Again, who is telling the truth? The 911 Omission authors or Lt. Col. Dan Nash? But, that's not all - it gets even worse for the official types and here's why. Contradiction #3 starts at 4:28 through 4:35:

"...so we flew that altitude and heading as fast as we could TOWARDS Manhattan."

Which was contradicted by the following (911CR pg. 20 par. 7):

So, they NEVER vectored to Manhattan. They were explicitly instructed to remain clear of New York area air traffic. Which lie do you believe? But, this story is about to get worse, if that is even possible at this point. Here's why. In the exact same video, Lt. Col. Dan Nash, offers up another physical impossibility. At 5:10 in the video, he says this:

"....we started heading towards New York City, basically, as SOON AS WE GOT AIRBORNE we could SEE THE SMOKE from the burning building...."

Well, that would be physically impossible. Why? You see, Otis AFB is roughly 167 nautical miles to New York City, as seen here:

What you see here, is the visual horizon with a south westerly heading towards New York City, from between Otis' runways 14 and 05, from approximately 10,500 feet AGL. The pin located at the top of the pic is where New York City, is located:

If Otis scrambles at 8:46, gets wheels up by 8:53 and Flight 11 makes contact with the first tower at 8:46 (911CR pg. 32), then that leaves 7 minutes for the smoke from building one to reach an altitude that makes it visible from 150-167+ nautical miles away.

Vx is best airspeed for Max Climb Angle and Vy is airspeed Max Climb Rate. To reach the highest altitude over the shortest distance on the ground, you would use IAS for Vx. Converse, to reach highest altitude in the shortest amount of time, you use IAS for Vy. In the case of the F-15 on a scramble to a target at altitude, it would most likely use something close to Vy, as time is of the essence.

The F-15 can reach a lousy 10,500ft AGL in mere seconds using Vx with AB. However, because getting to the intercept vector is time sensitive, using something closer to Vy and not Vx, it would have no doubt taken longer. These are highly variable things under such situations, but I would estimate under the circumstances and conditions that I can imagine, it would have been somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.3 minutes (could have been more) - give or take a few seconds on either side. Thus, if wheels are up at 8:53 and FL105 comes at close to 8:55+, that places the F-15s near 10,500ft AGL with 9 minutes for the smoke from T1 to have risen high enough over New York City, to be seen from 150-167+ nautical miles away.

This is not even remotely plausible. Even with the top floor of T1 being at 1,347ft AGL, 10,500ft AGL at 150-167+ nautical miles away is nowhere near high enough after 9 minutes.

It is contradictions like these that would come back to bite the official storytellers in the rear, should they ever allow for a true investigation into what really happened on September 11th, 2001.

 

[Bob0627]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

Like for example, this little gem:

Thank you. This is why I join discussion forums that contain topics about 9/11. I always learn something new in my continuing quest for the truth about 9/11. The information you provided is invaluable. If you have more, please post it. Thanks again.

BTW, perhaps you also know about this (see Consensus Point F)?

The 9/11 Consensus Points | Consensus 911

 

[mike2810]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

interesting website. 9/11 consensus Points.

Cofounded by co-founded by Dr. David Ray Griffin.
Panel members seem to be those who have already written or have views against the official reports.

and this panel is unbiased how? :mrgreen:

 

[Bob0627]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

interesting website. 9/11 consensus Points.

Cofounded by co-founded by Dr. David Ray Griffin.
Panel members seem to be those who have already written or have views against the official reports.

and this panel is unbiased how? :mrgreen:

They're not. The Consensus Points were derived as a result of the Toronto Hearings: Toronto Hearings | International Living Learning Centre, Ryerson University, 240 Jarvis Street, Toronto, September 8, 9, 10 & 11, 2011

And the Toronto Hearings were convened as a result of the work of many of those who question/disagree with the official narrative.

 

[ozeco41]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

interesting website. 9/11 consensus Points.

Cofounded by co-founded by Dr. David Ray Griffin.
Panel members seem to be those who have already written or have views against the official reports.

and this panel is unbiased how? :mrgreen:

There are fatal flaw issues at a more fundamental level that credibility of the members.

I hadn't looked at the material recently but they appear to be false representations of issues as if they were clams from the "official side" Actually the claims they present are truther side claims framed in "reversed burden of proof". So dishonest misrepresentation in the site presentation before we even get to the material they post. Not a good start.

Just one sample - simply the first one I accessed:

The Official Account -- The Twin Towers were brought down by airplane impacts, jet fuel, and office fires.1

The Best Evidence -- Experience, based on physical observation and scientific knowledge, shows that office fires, even with the aid of jet fuel, could not have reached temperatures greater than 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit (1,000 degrees Celsius).

So the best evidence is an irrelevant strawman. They may have got some traction for discussion back in 2006. But if that is "best evidence" they haven't learned anything. And the never ending error from both sides that claims depend on "evidence"....they depend on validated evidence PLUS a reasoned argument supporting the claim. The "validated' and "reasoned arguments" are far more often where the falsehoods or errors apply. Not in the evidence per se. Think about that one folks.

So what we have is a Gish Gallop by reference to a site.

Not worth the effort of saying much UNLESS some member here makes a claim calling on specific elements. Then we can rebut it. Till then - no claim to discuss. Yes - I know it was posted as a resource list.

 

[Bob0627]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

There are fatal flaw issues at a more fundamental level that credibility of the members.

I hadn't looked at the material recently but they appear to be false representations of issues as if they were clams from the "official side" Actually the claims they present are truther side claims framed in "reversed burden of proof". So dishonest misrepresentation in the site presentation before we even get to the material they post. Not a good start.

What a surprise, an immediate condemnation.

 

[PW4000]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

BTW, perhaps you also know about this (see Consensus Point F)?

Thank you!

I don't believe in gratuitous coincidence. We war gamed the scenario 12 days prior to 911. We were conducting inter-service exercises through NORAD the day of 911. We planned such an event in the 1960s whereby a commercial airliner would be used as a tool to gin up go-to-war fever amongst the American People with signatures all the way up the JCS. PNAC promised that in order for it to bring about the changes that it saw as necessary, something on the order of a New Pearl Harbor would be required. 19 neophyte terrorists just happened to defeat the world's most secure commercial airline transportation system second only to London's Heathrow Airport and using the exact same weapon that went undetected, box cutters. And, no ability to effect an intercept of a single aircraft involved in 911, all of them striking somewhere on the eastern seaboard where we have well established air intercept capabilities, save Flight 93.

There is not that much "coincidence" in all the world.

We did not blow the intercept. We never launched it until it was too damn late to have an effect. And, when we did scramble out of Otis, we issued orders for an altitude that never had a chance to stop Flight 175. There was never a commercial aircraft inbound on the Pentagon, nor was there ever a commercial aircraft having gone down in Shanksville. Neither one of those crash sites are commensurate with and consistent with any kind of commercial heavy crash that I have ever seen in my entire life in aviation, both civilian and military. And, when we examine the actual evidence that is available from the Pentagon and Shanksville, against what the actual 911 Commission Report says, we find glaring inconsistencies of the type and kind that I have highlighted herein.

Thus, 911 has all the earmarks of being an inside job. A psyop conducted against the American People for the sole purpose of going after Iraqi oil reserves, just like we went after Iran's oil back in 1953/54 riding shotgun with British MI6. It has always been about the oil since the mid 20th century.

 

[PW4000]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

The information you provided is invaluable. If you have more, please post it. Thanks again.

Here we go.

(Before we do - please change all references that I made relative to Otis and Flight 175, to Otis and Flight 11 - that was a typo on my part)​

In the video that I posted above at time 4:29, Lt. Col. Dan Nash, says "...we flew that altitude and heading as fast as we could towards Manhattan." That "altitude and heading" was supposed to have been the same altitude and heading that vectored them to the New York City area. You should know that intercept vectors are designed to bring the interceptor to an altitude GREATER THAN or LEVEL WITH the target being intercepted. That is how and intercept is approached.

According to the official bull, Otis was scrambled at 8:46 with wheels-up at 8:53. Now, go get your copy of the 911 Omission Report and turn to page 6 starting at the very last paragraph and ending at the top of page 7. It reads as follows:



Notice that near 8:44, Flight attendant Sweeney, tells Michael Woodward, in the American Flight Services Office in Boston, the following:

"We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low.... Oh my God we are way too low."

Now, take closer look at Flight 11's primary Radar Ground Track Study showing the actual flight path, times and altitudes allegedly using both Transponder and Primary Radar Returns. Pay special attention to legend letter "G":

Now, simply connect the following logical dots for yourself:

- At 8:37:30, Flight 11 is diving from FL290 at 3,200 feet per minute
- At 8:44, Sweeney confirms the aircraft is "way too low."
- Otis scrambles at 8:46 allegedly with both an "altitude and heading."
- Letter "G" on figure 1. AA-11 Radar Ground Track.

You see, this yet again how we know without question that the Official Story is total lie. Why? Because, the scramble order according to Lt. Col. Dan Nash, came with an altitude exactly 9 full minutes after Flight 11 had initiated a 3,200fpm dive on Manhattan. But, that's not all folks.

3,200fpm x 9 minutes = 28,800 feet of lost altitude by Flight 11, before Otis was scrambled at 8:46. Flight 11, allegedly made that dive from FL290 (29,000ft). That leaves Flight 11 at an altitude of 200 feet precisely at the moment when Otis was said to have scrambled at 8:46 with an "altitude" and a heading.

According to Lt. Col. Dan Nash, Otis was contacted directly by the FAA who broke protocol and was supposed to contact the military through NORAD. Thus, the altitude information given to Otis, was direct from the FAA and therefore should have been current. 9 minutes is more than enough time for the scramble orders to reach the pilots sitting at battle stations.

So, here is the official storytellers' problem:

A) If Otis scrambled up to the "altitude and heading" of Flight 11, then that altitude would have been no more than a few hundred feet off the ground at best. Thus, it would have been impossible for Lt. Col. Dan Nash, to "see the smoke" in New York City, from 150 to 167 nautical miles away, if you can't even see that same smoke from 10,500 feet at the same range.

B) If Otis scrambled up to an "altitude and heading" well above Flight 11's 200 foot altitude in its 3,200fpm dive, then it would have been physically impossible for the F-15s to make the intercept because they would not have been able to see the aircraft at that range, as there were no transponder returns from Flight 11 at that time according the the 911 Omission Report.

C.) You can't intercept an airborne target climbing UP to "altitude" when said target is DOWN at 200 ft AGL.

They lied - clearly and plainly - they lied through their teeth and this proves they lied beyond any shadow of doubt.

Will you ever get an official storytelling water carrier to debate you on these crucial matters? Not just no - but hell no. They will run and hide from these posts and not one of them will ever have the courage to take it head on. Why? Because there are no rational explanations for the discrepancies between the 911 Commission Report and what the facts clearly show as sourced by those who were actually there, Lt. Col. Dan Nash, etc., and the physical facts that we know about capabilities of the Boeing 757 and the F-15 Eagle.

 

[Bob0627]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

Thank you!

I don't believe in gratuitous coincidence. We war gamed the scenario 12 days prior to 911. We were conducting inter-service exercises through NORAD the day of 911. We planned such an event in the 1960s whereby a commercial airliner would be used as a tool to gin up go-to-war fever amongst the American People with signatures all the way up the JCS. PNAC promised that in order for it to bring about the changes that it saw as necessary, something on the order of a New Pearl Harbor would be required. 19 neophyte terrorists just happened to defeat the world's most secure commercial airline transportation system second only to London's Heathrow Airport and using the exact same weapon that went undetected, box cutters. And, no ability to effect an intercept of a single aircraft involved in 911, all of them striking somewhere on the eastern seaboard where we have well established air intercept capabilities, save Flight 93.

There is not that much "coincidence" in all the world.

We did not blow the intercept. We never launched it until it was too damn late to have an effect. And, when we did scramble out of Otis, we issued orders for an altitude that never had a chance to stop Flight 175. There was never a commercial aircraft inbound on the Pentagon, nor was there ever a commercial aircraft having gone down in Shanksville. Neither one of those crash sites are commensurate with and consistent with any kind of commercial heavy crash that I have ever seen in my entire life in aviation, both civilian and military. And, when we examine the actual evidence that is available from the Pentagon and Shanksville, against what the actual 911 Commission Report says, we find glaring inconsistencies of the type and kind that I have highlighted herein.

Thus, 911 has all the earmarks of being an inside job. A psyop conducted against the American People for the sole purpose of going after Iraqi oil reserves, just like we went after Iran's oil back in 1953/54 riding shotgun with British MI6. It has always been about the oil since the mid 20th century.

I don't believe in gratuitous coincidences either and what you describe are only a portion of a large volume of coincidences (I like to refer to them as miracles) that took place on 9/11. 9/11 was hugely profitable for many people and entities, yet another miracle akin to winning the lottery. Someone called it the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Bob0627]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

Here we go.

Yet another great catch. Thank you. Would you consider sending your findings to the 9/11 Consensus Panel at consensus911@gmail.com? I'm pretty sure they will review it and add your findings to their list of Consensus Points once they're verified. It's important to document all findings.

As to those who rabidly support and defend the official narrative, they're irrelevant. Their primary method of debate is to shoot the messenger, distract, obfuscate, deny the obvious, denigrate, ridicule, etc. just about every intellectually bankrupt tactic they need to resort to and not to mention never, ever criticize or question the official storytellers, except perhaps in the mildest form to try to appear genuine.

 

[PW4000]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

... Someone called it the gift that keeps on giving.

Giving Oil Barons Worldwide Windfall Profits:


This is the price of freedom out where I live. This is a pic of prices from two competing gas stations. One is a 76, which is where I expect to get ripped off and the other is from a local no-name station that used to have prices well below 76's brand name fuel, but now has decided to join in the biggest rip-off scheme in recent American Consumer history.

Heck, even the flex fuel prices are absurd.

 

[mike2810]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

They're not. The Consensus Points were derived as a result of the Toronto Hearings: Toronto Hearings | International Living Learning Centre, Ryerson University, 240 Jarvis Street, Toronto, September 8, 9, 10 & 11, 2011

And the Toronto Hearings were convened as a result of the work of many of those who question/disagree with the official narrative.

Your admitting this is a biased panel.

 

[mike2810]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

Giving Oil Barons Worldwide Windfall Profits:
View attachment 67166118

This is the price of freedom out where I live. This is a pic of prices from two competing gas stations. One is a 76, which is where I expect to get ripped off and the other is from a local no-name station that used to have prices well below 76's brand name fuel, but now has decided to join in the biggest rip-off scheme in recent American Consumer history.

Heck, even the flex fuel prices are absurd.

and we get how much oil does the US import from Iraq / Afghanistan?

 

[NWO_Spook]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

No my model is on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caATBZEKL4c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

Unless you think someone else is calling himself psikeyhackr.

Video distributed over the Internet is a new kind of common form of communication. Nowhere near as old as talk but more difficult to bullsh!t especially if other people can duplicate the experiment for themselves.

I have never seen so much uneducated rubbish in one place as I have on youtube, so your opinion of the veracity of that medium is specious to anyone with half a brain. Anyone can post any old drivel without moderation, and often do.

The point is that this is a grade school physics problem and if the north tower collapse was possible without more energy than we know about then your so called "professionals" should have built a model and demonstrated it in 2002.

Well, obviously it isn't a grade school physics problem or there wouldn't be contentious and unorthodox claims such as the one you are trying to make here.

But instead they can't even give us a table specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level so that we can make really accurate dynamic models.

I'm sure that isn't as difficult a problem as you imply. I'd wager that the need to do so isn't perceived a priority.

So where is your paper on the subject to counter the professional opinion?

And yet more than 50 skyscrapers over 1,000 feet tall have been constructed since 9/11 and the Empire State Building is 83 years old.


So the point is that skyscrapers are not rocket science and the idea that this problem is difficult to understand is ridiculous. But how can the "professionals" admit that the north tower should not have collapsed after 12 years? But it is not like most of them confirm the official story. Mos of them say NOTHING!

I'd wager most of them say nothing TO YOUR LIKING is more the case.

But you can BELIEVE what you want. I am not asking you to believe.

I believe nothing based on what someone says on the internet. Let's do this properly instead of relying on stupid videos, so have you a paper contra to the general consensus?

Grade school kids can duplicate and test my model for themselves.

I'm sure they can, but I never questioned the simplicity of your model (actually, I never questioned your model, period). If you recall I asked how anyone could believe the notion you posited in light of the work done over the last 6.5 years (is that right now OZ?) Your model is of little or no interest to me.

If you are not smart enough to do that then it is not my problem. :lamo

Dumbass cheap shot noted, anyway, if you can do it, anyone can (you see how easy it is to act like a dick like you? :lamo). I'm not interested in replicating your model, for that means nothing in a real world sense, PM me a link to your paper if you would be so kind.

 

[BmanMcfly]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

Why? Because it fits your world political outlook?
Or could iust be that you made up your mind before looking at any evidence?
Lets face it we both know the true answer.


Could be an argument for that or just they hate people who aren't of their faith and America beign the big dog on the block is the obvious target?
Regardless you still came to your conclusions without ANY evidence. Something all truthers do.




And this is relevant because? Oh yeah I forgot you are trying to divert from your massive fail where you admitted you came to your conclusions before you had ANY evidence.

Why? Not sure how I can simplify this concept further... Put it this way... They knew the mastermind of the attacks before any of the hijackers had been identified... Think about that for a second.

I like how you claim I'm wrong be paraphrasing the statement you claim to be wrong. See, it's stupid word games and nonsense like this that stifles honest debate and forces people into one side of another...

Again, the speed of naming a perpetrator without the time to gather evidence IS EVIDENCE in itself.

Are you thick or just pretending?

If you don't see the relevance of Afghanistan going from almost zero opium production to over 90% of global production within 3 years, and the people we were fighting were the people that destroyed the fields, then I don't know what to tell you. If you fail to see that this was being raised as an issue of how everything coming out after the fact was reinforcing my suspicions, based on the evidence of the speed with which the perpetrator was named before evidence could be collected, well, good luck to you.

 

[NWO_Spook]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

Why? Not sure how I can simplify this concept further... Put it this way... They knew the mastermind of the attacks before any of the hijackers had been identified... Think about that for a second.

It was pretty bloody obvious it was OBL. I said as much when I watched the second plane strike. One would have had to have lived under a rock not to guess that one.

 

[ozeco41]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

... If you recall I asked how anyone could believe the notion you posited in light of the work done over the last 6.5 years (is that right now OZ?)

At the time of my first post on the internet he was already active. Spouting his nonsense by innuendo. (Note how rarely he actually says anything - he may well have pioneered the style - currently being faithfully followed by "several identities".)

That was 14 November 2007 here in AU - 13 Nov for most others. So near enough 6.5.

At that time he was discussing an earlier model. A lot of work. I regularly praised his effort despite its futility.

So he could well be the internet pioneer of "content free posts of innuendo" and probably holds the record for number of forums he has been banned from for trolling.

His trademark irrelevant comment is about the distribution of mass of concrete and steel up the towers. Totally irrelevant given the way the towers actually collapsed. If you get the wording right and feed it to Google you will get a list of the astonishing number of sites and forums where he has posted that bit of nonsense. A lot of effort. Totally wasted.

 

[Fledermaus]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

I will make myself available.

And you are?

Real Retired Civil Engineers. Real Retired Commercial Pilots. Real Retired Academics. Real Retired Commercial Building Demolition Professionals. Are you getting the picture: Real and Retired.

And your definition of "real" is? And why retired? I would think retired would suggest less up to date.

These three entities have proven themselves to be untrustworthy and massively lacking in credibility. They have disqualified themselves with their own unethical behavior. Just take a look at the Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder. Or, take a close look at WHY no OEM has ever stood side-by-side with anyone from the FAA/NTSB/FBI and spoken publicly about what physical evidence was found at ANY of the four (4) crash sites, what conditions the material was found and the confidence level that such findings were indeed consistent with that which came off of its Assembly Line or out of its Assembly Plant.

Why would an OEM stand "side-by-side with anyone from the FAA/NTSB/FBI and spoken publicly" about anything? I don't recall that happening in other incidents. What would they say exactly? Our hijacked airliners crashed?

Any physical evidence that would be allowed in any court room in the land related to any criminal court case. It really is just that simple. If it came from either of the four (4) crash sites and it is vouched for by the appropriate OEM and Airline Representative, then it will be tagged and coded as evidence for the purpose of determining fact and relationship.

Why would evidence require "appropriate OEM and Airline Representative" signoff? Is this normal course for other incidents? What of the tons of evidence that wasn't airliner related?

The 911 Commission Report, NIST and the ASCE reports would be publicly burned for the unscientific trash they truly represent.

I didn't ask about either.... And I do not believe in book burnings.

A lot better than the three ring circus found in the 911 Omission Report. the MIST (Fog) Report (where the "N" is replaced with "M" for the sake of properly placed ridicule), as well as the American Society for the Criminally 'E'nsane Report (where the "I" is replaced with "E" for the sake of properly placed ridicule).

What do you think will be found?

Now, can you tell me how that "Young Man" was able to feed Dick Cheney, in-bound telemetry on an airborne vehicle headed towards D.C. airspace when nobody on earth was supposed to know the whereabouts of the alleged Flight 77, when Flights 11 and 175 were burning in New York and Flight 93 came nowhere near the radius provided through the testimony of Norman Mineta?

Irrelevant to the discussion.

While you are at it, can you tell me why the 911 Omission Report directly contradicts the public statements on record of both Lt. Col. Dan Nash and Col. Tim Duffy, with respect to scramble orders they received out of Otis, that sent them UP to an altitude and heading when both NEADS and the FAA knew full well that Flight 175 was DOWN near 200ft AGL and had been on a direct descent flight path from FL290 in a 3,200 fpm dive, for a full nine (9) minutes BEFORE Lt. Col. Dan Nash and Col. Tim Duffy, had wheels off the ground at 0853?

Irrelevant to the discussion.

You have a 911 Omission Report that directly contradicts the known public statements on record of the pilots (Lt. Col. Dan Nash and Col. Tim Duffy) who flew the intercept out of Otis. This gives you two (2) F-15s allegedly climbing out of Otis to an "altitude and heading" that NEADS and the FAA knew full well would NEVER vector them to the target, Flight 175. How could that be possible? How could something like that happen? Can you explain it?

Irrelevant to the discussion.

These still unanswered and embarrassing questions for the official storytellers, don't even represent the tip of the iceberg for what comes next. I doubt seriously that any official storyteller truly wants a real, open, frank, criminal style investigation into the what really happened on September 11th, 2001.

And I personally do not believe anyone using the phrase "official storyteller" truly would accept the findings of ANOTHER real, open, frank, criminal style investigation into the what really happened on September 11th

 

[Fledermaus]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

Why? Not sure how I can simplify this concept further... Put it this way... They knew the mastermind of the attacks before any of the hijackers had been identified... Think about that for a second.

One word.....

COMPUTERS

Take the known and suspected hijackers... Punch their names into a COMPUTER. COMPUTER states they are suspected Al Qaeda. Our COMPUTER talks to German COMPUTER. Confirms some of the hijackers were part of the Hamburg cell.

Al Qaeda.... Now who was a big wig in Al Qaeda at the time. Hmmmmmmm... Orama, Arkana, The name is on the tip of my tongue.

 

[Quag]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

No, they have a tendency to prove me right quite often. Of course, to claim one knew the government was going to provide a scapegoat is utterly ridiculous, and as you state, it merely confirms my comment about bias and prejudice. To make such a claim conveniently ignores the history between al-Qaeda and the US, but then, truthers seem to have a problem with evidence and its interpretation.

Thats an understatment

 

[Quag]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

Why? Not sure how I can simplify this concept further... Put it this way... They knew the mastermind of the attacks before any of the hijackers had been identified... Think about that for a second.

YOU claimed you knew there would be a scapegoat before YOU had any evidence.
Seems to me YOU are the one jumping to conclusions.

I like how you claim I'm wrong be paraphrasing the statement you claim to be wrong. See, it's stupid word games and nonsense like this that stifles honest debate and forces people into one side of another...

Gibberish wont help defend you from your massive fail where you ADMIT you KNEW before you had ANY evidence.

Again, the speed of naming a perpetrator without the time to gather evidence IS EVIDENCE in itself.

Yes that is basically what you did I am glad you can see the magnitude of your fail

Are you thick or just pretending?

Spoken like a certified truther when they condemn themselves with their own words.

If you don't see the relevance of Afghanistan going from almost zero opium production to over 90% of global production within 3 years, and the people we were fighting were the people that destroyed the fields, then I don't know what to tell you. If you fail to see that this was being raised as an issue of how everything coming out after the fact was reinforcing my suspicions, based on the evidence of the speed with which the perpetrator was named before evidence could be collected, well, good luck to you.

And once again he tries to deflect from his fail by adding stuff that has nothing to do with his own failed remarks. You get an A in truther 101, unfortunately for you I am not a truther and can see through pathetic attempts to deflect.

 

[Bob0627]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

Your admitting this is a biased panel.

Of course they're biased, not a single one of them buys the official narrative. That's why the Toronto Hearings were assembled in the first place. If they bought the story, there would be no hearings.

 

[Mark F]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

Giving Oil Barons Worldwide Windfall Profits:

This is the price of freedom out where I live. This is a pic of prices from two competing gas stations. One is a 76, which is where I expect to get ripped off and the other is from a local no-name station that used to have prices well below 76's brand name fuel, but now has decided to join in the biggest rip-off scheme in recent American Consumer history.

Heck, even the flex fuel prices are absurd.

That is a bit over-simple.

Where I live due to the unique way the laws are written here the higher the price of gasoline the less money local gas stations make.

 

[mike2810]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

Of course they're biased, not a single one of them buys the official narrative. That's why the Toronto Hearings were assembled in the first place. If they bought the story, there would be no hearings.

imo, then their work is as suspect as you find the govt.

Thought you wanted to find the truth. Seems all you want is a finding of the govt lied, and it was CD.

Bet you would not accept anything from a panel made up of people who only support the govt. expanation of 9/11

 

[Bob0627]

re: OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"[W:83,721]

imo, then their work is as suspect as you find the govt.

That's right, it's your opinion.

Thought you wanted to find the truth. Seems all you want is a finding of the govt lied, and it was CD.

I don't need any finding that government lied, that has been found over and over again. What I need to know is everything government lied about, for the record. But more importantly, what is the truth.

Bet you would not accept anything from a panel made up of people who only support the govt. expanation of 9/11

Bet you're right.