But most have already forgot-Forgot that the world got hosed....by the way the link, http://www.controlled-demolition.com/
the only folks allowed on site at WTC, after the shitfanhit...follow the trails, like good little detectives.....

I like how about 3.35, he says that a test plan took off 10 times, and landed 13 times???? something about that doesn't add up.. just like the rest of the b******t in this documentary.

"I like how about 3.35, he says that a test plan[e] took off 10 times, and landed 13 times???? something about that doesn't add up.. just like the rest of the b******t in this documentary. "

Yes, a plane can take take off only once, yet via "touch-and-go" landings I can land it 50 times and it would still be considered that I took off only once yet landed it 50 times. In your pilot log book it would be recorded as 1 takeoff and 50 landings.

Everything is not as black and white as you would believe it is.

Well, the idea that this documentary is full of garbage is true enough.

Are you kidding me? WTF is wrong with you people?!?!

These are the things you claim are garbage and bull:

1.) Testimonials from the firefighters that were there claiming explosions had been occurring at the WTC before and during the collapses.

2.) No real evidence that a *757 really crashed at the pentagon (my instrument flight class analyzed this and we determined that it was a cruise missle).

3.) Molten steel and evidence from one photo that one of the main beams was cut using thermate in the exact same fashion that demolition companies use to cut such a support beam. OMG it's staring at you in the face here!!!!

4.) Lack of wreckage from flight *93 indicates that it was shot down.

Grant it, there is a lot of hypothesis in this video, but if you believe the canned version that the Kean-Zelikow commission has spewed out (which unbelievably does not analyze the wreckage and other pertinent investigative information and clearly states that the funding of the terrorists is ultimately an unimportant factor.) then your either an idiot or a fool or both.

In order then:

1. Witnesses having heard explosions doesn't necessitate the existence of explosives. There are a number of non-conspiratorial explanations for people hearing these kinds of sounds. Also, a number of people report having heard a freight train, but that doesn't mean there were freight trains involved in the attacks. As far as I'm aware, no fire fighters believe there were explosives going off that day.

2. It was a 757 that crashed into the Pentagon. That would probably explain there being no evidence of a 767. (The fact you didn't know this hardly reflects well on the quality of your supposed analysis.) Further, if you consider dozens of pieces of eyewitness testimony, numberless pieces of recovered debris, a recovered and functional flight data recorder and the DNA identification of all but one of the passengers to be "no real evidence," then one might have to seriously wonder just what might qualify as "real evidence."

3. Demolition companies simply do not use thermite to cut large support beams (or anything else for that matter). Please provide some evidence to the existence of these photographs which supposedly show that the beams were cut.

4. See above. There is overwhelming evidence that Flight 77 crashed into Pentagon. There is no evidence it was shot down.

From the top then..

1.) If you watch this video you will see many firefighters that were on the scene claiming to hear the floor popping out in a demolition style fasion.

2.) Yes, I have a typo from typing in haste (i'm at work).. it's a Boeing 757-223 model.

3.) http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_charges.html here is some photographic evidence from ground zero of the beams that were cut.

4.) Yes, I meant flight 93, not flight 77.

1. The fire fighters in question do not claim to believe that the collapse was a demolition, they merely characterise it as having looked like one. Again, as far as I'm aware, no fire fighters currently believe there were explosives going off that day.

2. You made a typo. Fair enough. I refer you to the evidence for Flight 77 having hit the Pentagon I mention in my previous post.

3. You're quite correct. The photographs on the page you link to are indeed evidence that columns were cut -- by oxyacetylene torches during the clean-up efforts. Have a look at the following photographs:

A: Take special note of the incisions halfway up the column on the right.

B: Notice the similarity to the cutting effects depicted in your photograph.

4. There were numerous pieces of wreckage recovered from Flight 93. The flight data recorders and the cockpit voice recorders were also recovered. None of the resultant data supports the claim that the plane was shot down. It all supports the conclusion that the plane was intentionally crashed by the hijackers due to a passenger revolt.

There are two, much simpler, ways of determining if the attacks on 9/11 were the work of terrorists or a government conspiracy.

1. It would take hundreds, if not thousands, of people to pull this off if it was a government conspiracy, especially if they did it the way all the conspiracy nuts think they did it. At least one of those people would have come forward by now, but no one has.

2. The conspiracy nuts are still alive. If the US government had no problem killing 3000 American citizens then they would have no qualms about killing someone who was onto their secret. The maker of this video and videos like this would have been killed long before they got famous.

skeeve, lackeys who keep their mouth shut and live their life out comfortably, are a dime a dozen, just like experts.....denial is the roadblock, denial, that it COULD have been, an organized effort.....do you know what happened, or believe what is told you....if the latter, then lemme sell you some new shoes, or these easter bunny tickets...(he'll come to your house first, just dial the toll-free number!!!)

[I]f you believe the canned version that the Kean-Zelikow commission has spewed out (which... clearly states that the funding of the terrorists is ultimately an unimportant factor.) then your either an idiot or a fool or both.

To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance. Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding. If a particular funding source had dried up, al Qaeda could have easily tapped a different source or diverted funds from another project to fund an operation that cost $400,000-$500,000 over nearly two years.

The quote: "Ultimately the question is of little practical significance"

= Ultimately an unimportant factor

Why is that so hard to understand?

You've stripped the quotation from its context -- omitting the exposition of what it's claiming the question is of little practical significance to. This appreciably alters the meaning it carries. In its orphaned and paraphrased form, the quotation appears to be claiming that the question is of little significance to anything.

It directly relates to the first statement meaning that "The origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks are ultimately insignificant." and that "Al-Qaeda has many sources" yet they neglect to mention any of these sources.

This directly indicates that Al-Qaeda is the sole entity that is responsible and that it doesn't matter where they get their funding because the funding source(s) can be easily replaced by various other sources.

By this reasoning the commission has somehow determined that the "source" is irrellevant. Evidence has surfaced that $100,000 was transferred by Mahmood Ahmed (*Pakistan Secret Service) to the "mastermind": Atta (according to the official reports). Malawi was in Washington DC in a meeting with politicians on 9/11. This is very incriminating evidence and any focus on it is constantly suppressed.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&the_isi:_a_more_detailed_look=mahmoodahmed

If you're labouring under the misconception that the 9/11 Commission Report neglects to mention any funding sources, then the only forthcoming conclusion is that you haven't even read it. The quotation in question is taken from a section entirely devoted to the issue of funding sources. So, I'm sorry but you're wrong. Here is a more accurate paraphrasing of the quotation: "Ultimately the question of which specific channel was used is of little practical significance to the plotters' abilities to operate without running into financial difficulties." Also, if the 9/11 Commission really did consider the issue of terrorist financing to be irrelevant, it seems very strange that they would have released a 150-page monograph solely devoted to it.

Further, if you'd like to move onto the issue of Mahmood Ahmed (who you've incorrectly attributed to the "Palestinian Secret Services"), can I take it that our previous four issues of contention are settled?

cut paste, paste cut.....Was this a controlled demolition is the question no one can answer, therefore, it is a possibility....Does not matter at this point, if it was extremists funded by (?) or not???-not at issue...at issue, is whether or not, the 3 were brought down by more than planes.....survey says, ..."Obviously."

look at the photographs orf the columns at the base during the clean-up, against all the shit there is out there that looks, smells, tastes,feels, and sounds, like what a controlled demo is.....then ask the hard questions.....Basic Common Sense, based upon what all morons who don't do that type of thing for a living, should be able to google.....Now...par, your issues???

Choggie:

If you've got a point you can manage to communicate in an even faintly lucid manner, please feel free to do so. If you'd like to continue our other discussion, please let me know in the appropriate thread.

"Further, if you'd like to move onto the issue of Mahmood Ahmed (who you've incorrectly attributed to the "Palestinian Secret Services"), can I take it that our previous four issues of contention are settled?"

Bah!!! damn my typos. I meant Pakistan, not Palestine. sry about that, don't look too deep into it. It was a mistake, thanks for pointing it out.
Incidentally, why would you think that this minor error would nullify any of the other issues. They are unrelated and if that is how you are going to conduct your reasoning, then yes we are done discussing it.

I will read the document you have produced. I had not known about it before. When was it published?

I also noticed there is a bit of info on insider trading investigations in this document. This is something I've been wondering about as well.

Since there were significant spikes of put options on the day before the tragedy, that would normally cause a few red flags to go up. I'm glad that they were easily able to disprove that even though it was highly coincidental, it was not uncommon for such trading spikes to occur. The only thing this document seems to lack is physical evidence. Historical graphs of trading would really help to reinforce their theory that this kind of trading was uncommon.

Actually.. after I read it in it's entirety I'll let you know my thoughts on this document. Thanks

I wasn't implying that your minor error had any bearing on the previous four points. I was asking, given that you're now raising further issues, whether you considered the previous ones to be resolved. It would have seemed somewhat anachronous to start pursuing the Pakistani connection if not.

This point about the financing being moot; I dunno but if the money was somehow being siphoned off from say the Lottery I'd think twice about buying my ticket each week. To be a little serious, is the upshot of the report that no one has tried to find out who financed the operation? That seems a bit disturbing to me.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

Edit: Hell, see also:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html
or
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
(just type 'debunk screw loose' in to Google )

My point is that there's surely things we don't fully know about '9/11' the events leading up to and including September, 11th 2001. But, I don't think that these arseholes are the ones who should be telling us about them.

assholes,that's assholes.

I smell... sniff sniff, bullshit.

I hope you don't also believe that no Jews died as a result of the attack?

Deano:

Again, they have never claimed that the issue of financing is moot. The upshot of the report was that they were simply unable to determine the source of the funds.

Par, thanks for the clarification. I'm not really buying into the conspiracy theory though there do seem to be fascinating hole/loose ends that don't make sense. I guess you can cast doubt on *any* event but it would calm alot of people down if everything was explained in an upfront and frank manner.

BTW I haven't watched this vid, just making general chat. I did watch 9/11 Mysteries though.

No problem, Deano. I would agree with you up to a point. I'm sure there are issues surrounding the attacks that will never be explained; there are genuine mysteries in that regard. That said, I'm not aware of any that could rationally be considered conspiratorially mysterious (in other words, that could compellingly implicate anyone who isn't commonly understood to have been responsible), or any that are truly fundamental yet have been either perfidiously minimised or flatly ignored. I can, however, certainly see how you might have been given that impression by 9/11 Mysteries (which, incidentally, is marginally more deceitful even than Loose Change).

Where were they playing fast and loose with the truth? I was actually quite impressed with the production values - there didn't seem to be any crass emotional appeals and there seemed to be alot of emphasis on how material behaved etc. I think there were a few bits that were conjecture/speculation, like the noisy tenants that were never seen, "what could they have been doing?..." etc.

It was quite watchable and it did make me think twice about the whole thing. I might give this one a watch for a laugh.

To be honest, it'd be a lot easier to point out where they weren't playing fast and loose with the truth -- which is nowhere. "Fast and loose with the truth," in fact, seems excessively euphemistic in this case. I'm sorry if that sounds somewhat glib, but it really is that saturated with mendaciousness and deceit. The producers having mixed the sounds of explosions into the footage of the World Trade Center collapse serves as a notable example. More generally though, I recommend watching it once though whilst reading the 9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide.

Don't take my word for it.. take it from the 9/11 Commissioners.....

Thomas Kean(R) (of the 9/11 commission) had this to say about the official investigation:

Washington Post Article 8/2/06 - "Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

"We, to this day, don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. ... It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."


Here is an excerpt from the CBC INTERVIEW: LEE HAMILTON (D) (of the 9/11 Commission) - August 21, 2006
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html

Hamilton: I don't believe for a minute that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history.
We wrote it under a lot of time pressure, and we sorted through the evidence as best we could.

Now, it would be really rather remarkable if we got everything right. So far, of the things that have been brought up challenging the report, to my knowledge, we have more credibility than the challenger. But I would not for a moment want to suggest that that's always true, either in the past or in the future. People will be investigating 9/11 for the next hundred years in this country, and they're going to find out some things that we missed here.

So I don't automatically reject all the evidence you cite. It may be we missed it, it may be we ignored it when we shouldn't have - I don?t think we did, but it's possible.
...continued....

Solomon: You write.. the first chapter of the book is 'the Commission was set up to fail.' - my goodness, for the critics - who suggest that it was indeed set up to fail as some kind of obfuscation - you certainly dangled a juicy piece of bait out there in the river. Why do you think you were set up to fail?

Hamilton: Well, for a number of reasons: Tom Kean and I were substitutes - Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell were the first choices; we got started late; we had a very short time frame - indeed, we had to get it extended; we did not have enough money - 3 million dollars to conduct an extensive investigation. We needed more, we got more, but it took us a while to get it.

Here is my final link and I think the most important one. Near the bottom of the main page you'll find statements (with links to the source of the comments) from various 9/11 Commission Report writers.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Kean

Like I said.. DON'T take my word for it. Listen to these high ranking officials and commission members. Keep an open mind. They even stated that they don't know all the facts of that day and it will continue to be investigated for many many years.

Sincerely, CP

Your last two posts don't appear to either corroborate any of your previous points or refute any of mine. I can address the matter of the malfeasance surrounding the formation of the 9/11 Commission and its subsequent shortcomings in due course. Before raising a new point, however, might I ask that we attempt to resolve our original four?

I have to say I'm ploughing through Par's link to the 9/11 Viewers Guide and it sounds like a pretty good rebuttal so far to me. Thing is these guys can sow alot of doubt and it sounds convincing but ultimately where's the evidence? I also saw a video that showed the building sagging inwards and causing the floors above to fall.

The big problem for me is who the hell can run around buildings like that planting explosives without anyone noticing? It just stretches credulity a bit too much for me.

On second thoughts, Constitutional_Patriot, it's probably worth addressing this issue now as it raises an important overarching point.

Firstly though, some specifics:

While they indeed had sincere reservations about how it was formed, funded and so forth, neither Hamilton nor Keane believe that the 9/11 Commission was ultimately unsuccessful. In fact, the opposite is true. The following is a quotation from their book Without Precedent:

Both of us [Hamilton and Keane] were aware of grumbling around Washington that the 9/11 Commission was doomed--if not designed--to fail: the commission would splinter down partisan lines; lose its credibility by leaking classified information; be denied the necessary access to do its job; or alienate the 9/11 families who had fought on behalf of its creation. What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce within and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our success.

1. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

2. Eventually they told us we had the story right, they had it wrong, it took a while to get to that point, but we eventually got here. Did they lie to us or was it inadvertent? We are not a law enforcement agency, we did not have that kind of authority, going back to the mandate again. All of us had our suspicions here, but we simply did not have the staff and we were right up against the deadline when this came out, that we didn't have the time to say that these officials had willfully and intentionally lied.

Secondly, and most importantly:

Quite plainly, I've never claimed that the 9/11 Commission Report (or the official account of the attacks generally) is anything like perfect. In fact, I've alluded to its shortcomings in one of my previous posts. None of this, however, gives us epistemological carte blanche to make unsubstantiated claims about controlled demolitions and bogus plane crashes. I'm not claiming that because the 9/11 Commission Report says the attacks were carried out by nineteen Islamic fundamentalists, any other theory is necessarily wrong. I'm saying that the attacks were carried out by nineteen Islamic fundamentalists because there's overwhelming evidence to support the idea and absolutely no compelling evidence either to exonerate them or to implicate (other al Qaeda members, etc. notwithstanding) anyone else.

Analogously, Evolutionary Biologists, to their credit, are the first to admit that their theories are incomplete and likely (in at least some small part) to be erroneous and that to reject any conflicting evidence automatically would be imprudent. That alone doesn't mean, however, that Intelligent Design theories and their ilk are compelling alternatives; it doesn't mean it's rational to assume that there's a vastly intricate, unseen force behind our biology -- just as it isn't rational to assume there are vastly intricate, unseen forces behind 9/11.

Finally, a word of advice:

The conspiracy theorists -- the documentary makers, the bloggers and suchlike -- are out to hoodwink and deceive you -- to trick you into accepting a false conclusion that will drastically affect some of the most important aspects of your life -- your voting habits, your politics and even your lifestyle itself. So, ask difficult questions; do your own research; do not take what you're told at face value.

With this last bit of advice par, one could be compelled to, to assume or otherwise infer, that there are no others on the list of those, "out to hoodwink and deceive you -- to trick you into accepting a false conclusion that will drastically affect some of the most important aspects of your life" ...just those who propose that the official story reeks something awful-

Some individuals, most, are predictable, and easily led....conditioning-programming
very effective methods and means have been implemented to get us all, jumping through the unnatural hoops we do as humans today.

The very idea, that there are those capable of "pulling" it off, to some, instantly sends up the flags.....Insane.....preposterous......impossible.........crazy........think of some more expressive semantics to describe a predictable, human response to a dramatic set of stimuli.....

Gets some folks riled, simply to imagine there are those capable of believing in something like, taking control of an entire Nation.....Eisenhower was one of these fellows, who knew it could be done, and saw it happening, while standing on the tracks, train rushing at him......he jumped off at the last minute......

9/11 is an open case my fellow meatbots......keep it open, cause we have been, and are being hosed....

yeah-black/white duality does not apply here....the simple answer to the day's events, will most likely, never be made-

The denial dynamic works both ways...If tomorrow, we were all told the absolute truth , there would STILL be those, who would deny that......

fuck all, talk to a structural demolitions person, some pilots, some eyewitnesses, some folks in the building that day, cause that's about as close as you can get to a real answer, without calling the guys who did it....and being able to speak the language of the damned-

Well, you now seem to be under the impression that the perpetrators are currently dead. That's slightly encouraging. So, do you actually have any evidence that 9/11 was a conspiracy or do you not?

did never once call it conspiracy.... it's what you'd call in the Navy, a SNAFU
as situations like this go....(damned is not dead, unlike this stream)

Do you actually have any evidence that 9/11 was a conspiracy or do you not?

Look Par, what evidence do you have that the Lizard people didn't do it? eh?

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by chingalera.

Awarding kulpims with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

*dead