About 9/11

[cyberbri]

I guess you just don't get it...
The clip is not fake. I don't care where the clip is on the Internet, and I don't know about all the other theories put forward on that website.
It's part of a broadcast with the person describing the scene - no obvious signs of a plane. If you walked up to the building, not knowing a plane had hit the building, it wouldn't be immediately obvious a plane had hit it. No wings, engines, nothing. That's the point. He was describing it. You think it's someone else, a fake video. It's selective, yes. But to prove a point - a plane hit the Pentagon, but afterwards there were no signs of a plane, no wings or engines or tail fins. Find me a picture of some wings or engines and I'll shut up about it.

You said that the plane hit the Pentagon and the floors above it fell immediately. I disproved that with multiple sources, showed official photographs of a small hole and no wreckage, and you act like it's all fake. I dare you to find a picture of plane wreckage (wing, engine, etc.), or multiple news reports that say that the floors above the initial hole fell immediately. But just because there was no obvious such plane wreckage doesn't mean a plane couldn't have hit the Pentagon. I'm not disputing that. Just stating facts reported by every news media outlet. I don't see how you can have a problem with that and dispute it.

I don't doubt a plane hit the Pentagon. What plane it was, I do not know. It very well could have been blown to bits on impact, with all the passengers on board. But it seems like a stretch that a guy who could barely pilot a cessna pulled off those high-speed maneuvers, dropping 7000 feet during a u-turn at 400-600mph to hit the nearly-empty part of the building. The pilot and 3 other hijackers weren't on the passenger list, but somehow got on the plane. It took off from Dulles, about 4 miles from the Pentagon, then flew and then did a perfect u-turn back towards where it came from. The official story doesn't add up completely, to me and to a lot of other people.

If this kind of thing happened in another country that they don't have an allegiance to, and things were this fishy, I think a lot more people would be willing to admit that things don't add up. That's looking at it objectively, looking at the facts, not subjectively.


I have no idea what really happened on 9/11.
All I know is there are many holes and inconsistencies in the official story. I have posted fact after fact that casts doubt on the official story, but some people ignore everything, brush it off as mere coincidence (a huge string of them...).

 

[craigsub]

I guess you just don't get it...
The clip is not fake. I don't care where the clip is on the Internet, and I don't know about all the other theories put forward on that website.
It's part of a broadcast with the person describing the scene - no obvious signs of a plane. If you walked up to the building, not knowing a plane had hit the building, it wouldn't be immediately obvious a plane had hit it. No wings, engines, nothing. That's the point. He was describing it. You think it's someone else, a fake video. It's selective, yes. But to prove a point - a plane hit the Pentagon, but afterwards there were no signs of a plane, no wings or engines or tail fins. Find me a picture of some wings or engines and I'll shut up about it.

You said that the plane hit the Pentagon and the floors above it fell immediately. I disproved that with multiple sources, showed official photographs of a small hole and no wreckage, and you act like it's all fake. I dare you to find a picture of plane wreckage (wing, engine, etc.), or multiple news reports that say that the floors above the initial hole fell immediately. But just because there was no obvious such plane wreckage doesn't mean a plane couldn't have hit the Pentagon. I'm not disputing that. Just stating facts reported by every news media outlet. I don't see how you can have a problem with that and dispute it.

I don't doubt a plane hit the Pentagon. What plane it was, I do not know. It very well could have been blown to bits on impact, with all the passengers on board. But it seems like a stretch that a guy who could barely pilot a cessna pulled off those high-speed maneuvers, dropping 7000 feet during a u-turn at 400-600mph to hit the nearly-empty part of the building. The pilot and 3 other hijackers weren't on the passenger list, but somehow got on the plane. It took off from Dulles, about 4 miles from the Pentagon, then flew and then did a perfect u-turn back towards where it came from. The official story doesn't add up completely, to me and to a lot of other people.

If this kind of thing happened in another country that they don't have an allegiance to, and things were this fishy, I think a lot more people would be willing to admit that things don't add up. That's looking at it objectively, looking at the facts, not subjectively.


I have no idea what really happened on 9/11.
All I know is there are many holes and inconsistencies in the official story. I have posted fact after fact that casts doubt on the official story, but some people ignore everything, brush it off as mere coincidence (a huge string of them...).

Got it .. you are enlightened, and I don't "get it" ... You can post links to a website that is so far out they are posting stuff about the Pentagon being occult based, yet their "facts" about 911 are to be accepted.

The only people for whom things are "fishy" is what is commonly called the fringe of society.

And, just so we are clear on one REALLY important area. You and your lunatic sources from these websites on these are making all sorts of allegations and accusations about 911. You then demand proof that you are wrong.

That is not how things work here. It is your job to prove you are right.

If you were presenting your sources in a court of law, you would be laughed out of court, and the case dismissed.

Judge Judy wouldn't even take your "case".

 

[cyberbri]

Haha. If that's the way you feel, fine. You know you can't come up with pictures of plane wreckage at the Pentagon because there was none, and I'm crazy for pointing this fact out? I tried to make my case logically and objectively, but I guess that doesn't matter. You just can't get past the fact that one video clip (which is not fake, btw) comes from a CT site, and the conversation just shuts down from there. If you want to believe they somehow faked that video, fine. That's a "conspiracy theory" you happen to believe, and I won't hold it against you.

No point in going in circles any more.


But I will contest something you said:

The only people for whom things are "fishy" is what is commonly called the fringe of society.

Just so you know, you just called over half of New York the "fringe of society."
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

Released: August 30, 2004

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

 

[Johnd]

cyberbri:
To comment again on a singular aspect of your argument: reporting, and those facts/statements that the reporter chooses to report:

I don't believe anyone "knew" about the specificity of the 9-11 attacks, other than the perpetrators and their inner circle.

So when you quote New Yorkers as believing the Government as having "foreknowledge" of impending 9-11 attacks...that is not to say that the US Government knew an attack would be made on the Twin Towers or the Pentagon. The chatter was increasing...and there was a lot of hub bub about "something".

What specifically...I do not believe that was known outside of the inner circle. Context...

 

[craigsub]

Haha. If that's the way you feel, fine. You know you can't come up with pictures of plane wreckage at the Pentagon because there was none, and I'm crazy for pointing this fact out? I tried to make my case logically and objectively, but I guess that doesn't matter.

No point in going in circles any more.


But I will contest something you said:



Just so you know, you just called over half of New York the "fringe of society."
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

You actually consider The Web Fairy to represent logic, while sources like CNN do not represent logic.

I really cannot fathom how any reasonable person could look at and read the nonsense posted on The Web Fairy and still consider them to be in any way credible.

At least you are getting closer to telling the truth about what YOU think. You believe there was some vast conspiracy, and that the government knew about 9/11 in advance.

At least have the guts to say what you believe in.

As for your assertion that I need to come up with pictures of the Pentagon. I did. You dismissed them as "being 45 minutes later" ... you have no proof of that, but, again, that does not matter to you.

Cy, you go on believing in The Web Fairy. You fit in with that line of thinking rather well.

 

[masak_aer]

You two (craig n cy) have been posting so many times going back and forth. It is apparent to me that both of you aren't in the same perspectives on this issue.

As much as I want to believe there's a high-profile government conspiracy on this event, I find it hard to believe merely on pics and "facts: laid out by websites i don't have credentials to check on. I have seen way too much information that were so different from the reality. Government controlled press? Not really..they have responsibilities to the community as well: to report a story without prejudice. However, that hasn't been the practice. Big medias give NOT the complete picture of this event. Now some "googled" websites also laid out facts to what they want to see and expect people to see. They have their own agendas no matter what it is. You just have to accept these facts. Have you talked first hand to people who are in the buildings, either the pentagon or the towers? I have, and their experiences are real!

It is soo sad that here, we argue whether it was a conspiracy or not while ignoring the feelings of those who lost their loved ones. The victims are real the tragedy is real. The government hasn't been all truthful about this and we, all, may agree on that and leave it at that for now. I just hope that one day, the truth will be revealed.

Cy, you can stop linking websites on this thread, i think we all have enough of that. Give your own final thoughts and expectations you can draw from the discussions. We'd appreciate it more that way.

Craig, there's always to sides of a coin as we are on this matter. I understand how you feel about Cy's and his arguments. I can't blame you as i also agrees on several of your comments. You have been great on voicing your own thoughts rather than pulling out "facts" from googled websites.

Otherwise this has been a reat thread with great arguments!!

 

[cyberbri]

You actually consider The Web Fairy to represent logic, while sources like CNN do not represent logic.

I really cannot fathom how any reasonable person could look at and read the nonsense posted on The Web Fairy and still consider them to be in any way credible.

At least you are getting closer to telling the truth about what YOU think. You believe there was some vast conspiracy, and that the government knew about 9/11 in advance.

At least have the guts to say what you believe in.

As for your assertion that I need to come up with pictures of the Pentagon. I did. You dismissed them as "being 45 minutes later" ... you have no proof of that, but, again, that does not matter to you.

Cy, you go on believing in The Web Fairy. You fit in with that line of thinking rather well.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
Enter "331" at the bottom.
Initial strike was at 9:37.
Next page, partial collapse occured at 9:57.
20 minutes later, not immediately.
Other sources have it as happening at 10:15.
Either way, the collapse was not immediate, as you claim. So your claims go against the official story. Or is the 9/11 Commission, NY Times and CNN not good enough proof for you?

Before and after collapse:

Still think you are right about the Pentagon?

 

[craigsub]

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
Enter "331" at the bottom.
Initial strike was at 9:37.
Next page, partial collapse occured at 9:57.
20 minutes later, not immediately.
Other sources have it as happening at 10:15.
Either way, the collapse was not immediate, as you claim. So your claims go against the official story. Or is the 9/11 Commission, NY Times and CNN not good enough proof for you?

Before and after collapse:

Still think you are right about the Pentagon?

Cy, While they are not quite as revered as The great guys from Web Fairy ... Popular Mechanics has some good reading ... link

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

I still want to know where all the survivors are on United 93 that landed in Cleveland.

 

[cyberbri]

Cy, While they are not quite as revered as The great guys from Web Fairy ... Popular Mechanics has some good reading ... link

Are you trying to use that to refute the fact that the floors collapsed at a later time (the post you were replying to)?

Or are you trying to change the subject because you were wrong about the Pentagon and don't want to apologize for attacking me, when you should have checked your facts first? Not to mention with such a weak so-called "argument"?

That Popular Mechanics article took the weakest arguments and biggest straw men and "debunked" them. Fine. But most/all of that article has again been "debunked" in many places (search for "Popular Mechanics 9/11 debunked" to see what kind of disinformation the article had), and much of the stuff being refuted in that article is bunk anyway.

That page you linked made it look like the main argument about the plane being shot down was the "direction of the wind." Actually, I had never even heard the bit about the wind direction until I read that article. Put up a straw man and knock it down, make the other side look crazy for beleiving in such bunk when most don't to begin with.

 

[craigsub]

Are you trying to use that to refute the fact that the floors collapsed at a later time (the post you were replying to)?

Or are you trying to change the subject because you were wrong about the Pentagon and don't want to apologize for attacking me, when you should have checked your facts first? Not to mention with such a weak so-called "argument"?

That Popular Mechanics article took the weakest arguments and biggest straw men and "debunked" them. Fine. But most/all of that article has again been "debunked" in many places (search for "Popular Mechanics 9/11 debunked" to see what kind of disinformation the article had), and much of the stuff being refuted in that article is bunk anyway.

That page you linked made it look like the main argument about the plane being shot down was the "direction of the wind." Actually, I had never even heard the bit about the wind direction until I read that article. Put up a straw man and knock it down, make the other side look crazy for beleiving in such bunk when most don't to begin with.

Cy ... We are past the point of trying to continue. You won't say what you believed happened, but are happy to link to these asinine conspiracy theory web sites.

Unless you are going to act like a man, and say what you really think happened, I can only assume you agree with the bilge on sites like The Web Fairy.

They believe no plane hit the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and Flight 93 was a hoax, with passengers being taken off the plane in Cleveland. They believe that the government was involved in the mass murder of 1000's of people.

Is that, or is that not, what you believe ?

 

[cyberbri]

I don't agree with those claims, no.
But I don't have a theory of what all happened, because I want to make an objective judgment with all the facts, not a subjective judgment based on emotion. We don't know all the facts (big parts missing, like flight recorders of 3 of the planes (IIRC)), but all I know is that in my mind (and the mind of a lot of others), things don't add up. I don't agree with everything out there, and a lot of it is disinformation. The only "assinine conspiracy website" I linked to was thewebfairy, and even then it was only because they have a clip from the news on it (although according to your own little conspiracy theory, you think that the clip was faked, correct? that's what you have been implying...)

But I don't think we'll ever have all the facts. By stonewalling any sort of investigation for a year, they didn't want us to have barely any facts.

But from the facts we do have (that most do not know about), I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of government involvement, or at least pre-knowledge of the event. It's not impossible, you know. It almost happened 40 years ago, so who is to say it could never actually happen, if it's for the good of the country, to protect the interests and the future of the country?

So we will never know what happened for sure - except for the people who accept the official story, and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't get mad at other people because they have different opinions than myself, and I don't call them crazy just because I don't agree with them.

Actually, I've posted all this a number of times, if you've been reading. I don't know what happened, and the scant proof out there for the official story isn't enough for me. I guess I'm just skeptical. But so are a lot of other people, including 1/2 of New York (they're the ones that got attacked, remember? I guess the 1/2 that are skeptical are just the crazy half of New York...).


And if you are going to talk about being a man, how about being a man yourself and admit you were wrong, and apologize for attacking me over and over again? I don't care one way or the other, but it's the principle of the matter. I respect you very much for your contributions on all these AV forums, but I am disappointed with your conduct here. Real men can admit when they're wrong, and know how to apologize. So how 'bouts it?

That's it. I'm done responding to you in this thread (unless, of course, I get an apology ). It's a waste of time for me, and I'm sure you feel the same way. People here can see the way you "debate," which is basically to avoid any real facts I post and stick to the "you're all crazy" thing. If it works for you, more power to ya! It's not working on me, though. Which is why I'm through trying to debate this with you here.

 

[craigsub]

Cy ... An apology ? For what ?

I have tried asking you a simple question, which you refuse to answer. Do you believe, as does the website you are touting as being factual, that the U.S. government was involved in the mass murder of 1000's of innocent people on 9-11-2001 ?

This is either yes or no. I will go on the record. I do not believe the U.S. government murdered these people. You won't answer that question.

 

[Buckle-meister]

...I have also seen very convincing evidence that the Loch Ness monster is really there...

What makes you think it isn't?

 

[craigsub]

What makes you think it isn't?

I was wondering when someone would ask that ... Of course, it HAD to be you ...

 

[Ajax]

Maybe Buckle-meister IS the Loch Ness monster. (with a Glasgow ISP. )

 

[Buckle-meister]

Maybe Buckle-meister IS the Loch Ness monster.

Didn't you know? The Loch Ness Monster's female.

 

[sjdgpt]

I thought Nessie was a circus elephant that went for a swim.

 

[Ajax]

Didn't you know? The Loch Ness Monster's female.

I VERY MUCH would like to know how this was determined. I have visions of swim fins, a dive mask, a snorkel, and a REALLY fast swimmer.

 

[Tsunamii]

What about all this nonsense that we landed on the Moon, everyone knows it was a Hollywood set. Next you’re going to tell me that Elvis and JFK aren’t the ones who are secretly running this country.