9/11

[Kyuubi]

Quote from above link. No matter how hard something hits. Theres something left. Thats the line used when they found a passport at Ground Zero right.. works both ways.

Yeah pretty much... I know where you're going with this...The old "passport survived" meme supposedly suggests an inside job of variation "x,y,z." As amazing and it seems, it happens more often than you apparently think... If you got something to add to that which would bolster the claim be my guest but that's hardly any place to start.

So you have no inteest in anything but supporting the govermdent out of Poltical fanaticism.....

After 2 years of digging into this conspiracy crap it gets pretty old. If it had an argument to stand on then it would have no need to rely on deliberate misconceptions and professional incompetence to get it's point across. There's a number of people who endorse these theories that absolutely think you can drop lemons on lemons to show how buildings can't collapse. You think I'm joking? http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/HeiwaLemon.jpg

I've seen it first hand... and it's absolutely absurd

 

[notimpressed]

Yeah pretty much... I know where you're going with this...The old "passport survived" meme supposedly suggests an inside job of variation "x,y,z." As amazing and it seems, it happens more often than you apparently think... If you got something to add to that which would bolster the claim be my guest but that's hardly any place to start.



After 2 years of digging into this conspiracy crap it gets pretty old. If it had an argument to stand on then it would have no need to rely on deliberate misconceptions and professional incompetence to get it's point across. There's a number of people who endorse these theories that absolutely think you can drop lemons on lemons to show how buildings can't collapse. You think I'm joking? http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/HeiwaLemon.jpg

I've seen it first hand... and it's absolutely absurd

Whatever this rant is nothing but emphatic denial and merely indicates a refusal to look at the issue at all. It?s obvious you hardly read what I wrote as you misinterpreted it quite badly.

You do exemplify my point about the difference between the attempt to discredit ala the Fox news handbook, as opposed a open minded investigation to sceintifcaly disprove.

Are there some really out there ideas on this stuff? Oh yeah. That in no way dscredits everybody on one side of the issue. There are equally fanatic people on there other that are just as off the rails.

Was 93 Shot down. I personaly put the chances on yes at less the 10 percent. So I belvie it was lying there in shanksville? Right now no. No visual evidence indcates that. PA 1771 was pretty pretty well disintigrated yes. Respnders on seen said they found 1000s of aricles of clothing and Body parts, and piece of Airliner the size of a gorwn mans fist. There also was a crater, surpisingly small, yet far larger then the sink hole I saw in Shanksville that people claim is the impact point.

The Pentagon and the Missile. The standard statement from people is "All those people saw the plane." That is totaly meaningless. Why? People in cars that are very scared. Are not credible witness. Alot of people thought they saw fleet of UFO in Mexico City. Were they right? No.

 

[Kyuubi]

Whatever this rant is nothing but emphatic denial and merely indicates a refusal to look at the issue at all. It’s obvious you hardly read what I wrote as you misinterpreted it quite badly.

Instead of repeating what just about every conspiracy theorist rattles on about whenever somebody explains why they don't agree with the "movement" can you please be straight forward about the point you intend to make?

Quote from above link. No matter how hard something hits. Theres something left. Thats the line used when they found a passport at Ground Zero right.. works both ways.

Was I supposed to read this any other way? If so, I'm all ears.

I've "debated" conspiracy theorists on this thing for two years, and any time a line is brought up about the hijacker passports surviving the plane crashes into either tower it's always about how improbable it is... how it must have been planted, how impossible it is for the passport to have survived. I'm all ears if you think I'm wrong but you sure aren't being straightforward about it aren't you? Instead you parried this out:

You do exemplify my point about the difference between the attempt to discredit ala the Fox news handbook, as opposed a open minded investigation to sceintifcaly disprove.

Which is pretty much a tamed down version of calling me that favorite truther label of shill. I made a post here back in April or March... It's one page ago in this thread. You got an issue with anything I've commented on, then spill it. Don't knock around the bushes. What's from this imaginary "Fox News Handbook"?

Was 93 Shot down. I personaly put the chances on yes at less the 10 percent. So I belvie it was lying there in shanksville? Right now no. No visual evidence indcates that. PA 1771 was pretty pretty well disintigrated yes. Respnders on seen said they found 1000s of aricles of clothing and Body parts, and piece of Airliner the size of a gorwn mans fist. There also was a crater, surpisingly small, yet far larger then the sink hole I saw in Shanksville that people claim is the impact point.

You started vague, and you're continuing to be vague... you're only issue appears to be the "size of the crater." That doesn't give much to start with if you have any quirks with it... Do you have more you want to go on about?

The Pentagon and the Missile. The standard statement from people is "All those people saw the plane." That is totaly meaningless. Why? People in cars that are very scared. Are not credible witness. Alot of people thought they saw fleet of UFO in Mexico City. Were they right? No.

How do you make the case of flawed memory and the weakness of witness testimony when the collective statements of all 118 of them corroborate each other to the extent that they all saw a plane plow into a building?

What's your argument against the DNA identification, plane debris, passenger remains, Cockpit data, radar data linking the aircraft to that location?

What of the damage exhibiting no characteristics of explosives? All of the damage is unidirectional (in the direction the mass travelled in) as opposed to omnidirectional (as if radiating from a point blast)?

What about 70 ft impact hole from the aircraft? The landing gear?

You appear to be ignoring all of that without basis. Is that supposed to be scientific at all? Ignoring the collective body of evidence is a pretty downpacked skill of the conspiracy movement.

 

[notimpressed]

What you highlighted in bold is all you were looking for and all you read. This is classic Fox news type stuff. Talking points and shout downs.

The witness testimony is far from exact from person to person, major irreconcilable differences come from many people. 9/11 commision cherry picked evidence. Even many victims family have sued for a new investigation.. I have seen 13 people state they saw something totally different from the government report. two of them were DC cops one of those cops was so emphatic that he was losing his temper when challenged.

Nothing found was definitively an aircraft of type claimed by the Government. And close ups of wheels without any background for context is meaningless.

70foot? no 16 foot.

The rest is simply an argument that Government statements prove they weren't lying. Thats like saying all criminals are innocent cause they say so.

 

[Kyuubi]

What you highlighted in bold is all you were looking for and all you read. This is classic Fox news type stuff. Talking points and shout downs.

You made a claim that I asked you elaborate on.

The witness testimony is far from exact from person to person, major irreconcilable differences come from many people

And yet all statements share a single, common, theme. It involves an aircraft striking the building. I'm not sure where you get the impression that every nitpicking detail needs to fall in lockstep with each other especially given you yourself explained that eye witness testimony - due to it's inherent weakness compared with other forms of evidence - is best used in tandem with the collective of numerous witnesses. You look for what's common all of the testimony.

9/11 commision cherry picked evidence. Even many victims family have sued for a new investigation..

I haven't read the commission report, here's your chance... convince me. What relevant section of the report do you feel makes you point? Explain.

I have seen 13 people state they saw something totally different from the government report. two of them were DC cops one of those cops was so emphatic that he was losing his temper when challenged.

So I take it rather than looking at the conglomeration of testimony demonstrating that the plane hit the building you'd rather focus on a tiny minority of the collective that according to "Citizens Investigation Team" AKA "CIT", proves they fired a missile, while doing a flyover from a "north of Citgo" approach to the building. All the while ignoring the one detail that is common between them and over 100 other people.

Nothing found was definitively an aircraft of type claimed by the Government. And close ups of wheels without any background for context is meaningless.

I know right? I mean, it's not like the American Airlines markings, or tags made the source projectile obvious... Or the landing gear... or the conspicuous lack of said plane arriving at it's destination, or the passengers... (which BTW were identified inside the Pentagon wreckage). We'll just ignore that and pretend all of it was planted. Better yet we'll just nitpick a few foreshorted photos of the debris field and pretend that it proves there was no debris from a plane, just like Loose Change!

70foot? no 16 foot.

Here's you're "16 foot hole" on the second floor of the structure. The remaining penetration extends along the first floor and was far larger, of course Loose Change would prefer not to show that tiny detail

Loose Change isn't a good source ya know... What'll be next on the movie list? September Clues? Zeitgeist? aye.... I feel like I'm watching reruns from 2006...

 

[notimpressed]

You still have nothing but the common talking points. You have not read the statmate yet. There was no claim in it. What your writing isnt deabte. your trying to shout them down and discredit them with the usual scripted responses. it is common on these forums, Parse text look for a few words, express the scripted responses to them and repeat as necessary.

As far as a paint job. If I paint a Chevy Chevette Canary yellow and put a spoiler on it, it still aint a corvette.

Give me a 2 page summery of that report within 5 minutes of reading this post. LOL.

The total damage of the building could be caused by any number of things. That hole is pretty symmetrical and the plane does not fit in it.

I have seen 2 DC cops and 11 other people including one of the helipad controlers insist that the approach path was totally different then the one claimed by the government. Thats not a nitpicking detail. The testimony of witnesses in the 9/11 commission is not anywhere near the sum total of people that witnessed the event

 

[Kyuubi]

What your writing isnt deabte. your trying to shout them down and discredit them with the usual scripted responses. it is common on these forums, Parse text look for a few words, express the scripted responses to them and repeat as necessary.

You aren't going to see a ton of change when the same exchange is repeated ad nauseum for several years. Instead of accusing me of posting a script, and calling it a shout down why don't you actually spend some time explaining to your readers why the claims are wrong? Links and quotes with a one sentence summary might be nice too..

The total damage of the building could be caused by any number of things. That hole is pretty symmetrical and the plane does not fit in it.

The total damage could have been any number of things but the available evidence only points to one; an American Airlines Jet. And an admission that you were duped over the 16 foot hole claim would have nice instead of the goal post shift of now claiming it should have been a loony toons cut out imprint.

I have seen 2 DC cops and 11 other people including one of the helipad controlers insist that the approach path was totally different then the one claimed by the government.

And yet, all 13 of these witnesses whom you isolate from the other hundred also place the plane inside the Pentagon. And a multitude of physical evidence supports this common trait of the testimony. How difficult of a concept is this to you?

 

[notimpressed]

And an admission that you were duped over the 16 foot hole claim would have nice instead of the goal post shift of now claiming it should have been a loony toons cut out imprint.

Silly semantics. The word symentrical should be all to obvious what I was refering too. The whole is A too small for the plain claimed. B. The speed of the plane impact is in question. That leaves a major variable as to what a plane like that could have done if it really had it the building. WTC is not in anyway a basis for comparison on that.

also place the plane inside the Pentagon

Uhh no they don't. Nor is there any physical evidence that definitively confirms the goverment account.

 

[notimpressed]

these 13 are not the only ones that have accounts that differ in much more then irrelevant detials, but major ones. many are contraditory to one another. THe Citgo witnesses, espeiacly the police were in a a very good postion. The stuctual damage, and the Police story are tow big reasons I am not convinced of the offical story.


You keep refering to my portion of a post mentiong the passport as a claim. It was not. Try reading a couple posts behind and see it in athe proper context.

 

[Kyuubi]

Silly semantics. The word symentrical should be all to obvious what I was refering too. The whole is A too small for the plain claimed. B. The speed of the plane impact is in question.

Not every single part of the plane had enough mass to penetrate, specifically those areas including the ends of the wings, and tail fin. Why exactly you would expect the hole to be an exact cartoon imprint is beyond me. Your original claim is that the hole is 16 ft, is plain false, and to think you're going to acknowledge it is expecting too much I see...

WTC is not in anyway a basis for comparison on that.

The WTC had nothing to do with what I posted. You aren't going to get a cartoon imprint period, not every single part of the aircraft had enough mass to penetrate.

Uhh no they don't.

These are the paths they drew... Of course feel free to explain to me why one part of their statement worth taking to congress and the rest, worth leaving out. I'm really curious...

Nor is there any physical evidence that definitively confirms the goverment account.

Ignoring evidence doesn't make it go away, sorry.

You keep refering to my portion of a post mentiong the passport as a claim. It was not. Try reading a couple posts behind and see it in athe proper context.

I saw it in the proper context just fine. You suggested that you had a problem with the idea that things could miraculously survive some of the most extreme disasters without any nefarious intervention and I took you up on that statement. Was I wrong about the assumption?

"the line used with the passport found at ground zero...works both ways"

 

[notimpressed]

Its a 16 Foot hole. Saying its not doesnt really matter. If I shoot somebody with a 44 it wont leave a 38 hole. There are no parts its one object. If the wings come off then they are not there at that site and there isnt a scrap of metal painted any color that will account for them in those pictures. They just arent there period.

I saw it in the proper context just fine

100 percent wrong. This shows even furhter the commmon Fox news shout down argument. You use the same lame talking points that proove nothing.

The flight path statemetns are the only thing mentioned none of them said anything about anything else in the statments on video I watched recently. Not that wold matter a bit if they did.

 

[Kyuubi]

Its a 16 Foot hole.

If you're going to dismiss every legit attempt to discuss where your wrong as a shoutdown with out making any effort of your own to discuss why you consider it so, or outright ignore any points that are relevant, then that's you're irreducible delusion. Have fun in the CIT Brigade, I wish you luck in getting your new "investigation."

 

[notimpressed]

Well we have all noted your point . "I am wrong and your right". Yeah, check. Not really going to mean much to most.

 

[notimpressed]

and dont wish me luck, wish people like this woman luck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CrlDr-IEAA

 

[Kyuubi]

Compared, to your allegation of a Pentagon flyover/no-plane/missile, her anger concerning the lack of evacuation in WTC 2 after the first attack has a lot more backing, and I certainly hope she's found the answers she seeks.

You on the hand will have quite a project given you'll have to somehow convince a judge that your bizarre witness criteria and malformed case are worth the paper work. Once again, I wish ya luck on that.

 

[notimpressed]

Compared, to your allegation of a Pentagon flyover/no-plane/missile

That was never made. Your still reading off a script.

 

[Kyuubi]

That was never made.

CIT is the only 9/11truth group that still peddles this 13 witnesses north of Citgo theory, and their default theory is that a plane was flown over the Pentagon. Anybody who has followed the different 9/11 conspiracy theory variations knows this.

 

[notimpressed]

Well as a scripted "bebunker" your game is to attack these people with the same talknig points.. I don't know of this CIT. I have heard of loose change mentioned on media, I guess it gets most coverage. I really don't care.

I listened to what the people have said, nothing else. I saw two planes in New York, not any others. people described what they saw. Nothing said by anybody ever can conclusivly confirm the type of plane.

Nothing is impossible but a flyover is not likely unless the plane was considerably smaller as initial reports said it was.

I saw the C-130 on film. It was there, without question.

 

[notimpressed]

Also its not theory its what 11 people and 2 Cops saw. I find it very hard to believe those two policemen are both lairs. There no middle ground, no mistake from those two. They either are liars or they aren't.

 

[Kyuubi]

As you said:

The witness testimony is far from exact from person to person, major irreconcilable differences come from many people.

You posted it but don't seem to follow about witness testimony. It's not perfect; being wrong doesn't make them liars, it just makes them wrong. This is why people look for corroboration in witness testimony; and once again one singular detail is consistent not just among 13 people, but more than 100. You refuse to acknowledge it though making any further discussion a waste of time.