9-11 an INSIDE JOB?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes. You also think that the official account is a reasonable account of what happened that day; you thought that the facade was 'mostly glass'; you think that evidence garnered through torture is not physical evidence; you think that I 'spent many pages promoting the 'no-plane' theory. It's clear that you think a lot of things; it's also clear, and demonstrably so, that not all of your 'thoughts' are correct
If not the "no plane" theory, then what theory? The "unusually strong plane theory"? The "simultaneous demolition with plane impact theory", or the "Previously weakened theory".

What is your theory? Just the "looks odd, must be an inside job, theory"?

Yes, I misestimated the ratio of glass to girders. It made no difference to my actual point, and I retracted it immediately the error was pointed out.

Now you are claiming that the recorded events broke Newton's third law, I explain why it does not apply. So you should retract or defend your claim? No?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Here is something known as evidence. An eyewitness report from a senior military observer who was actually there on the day.

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, A Pentagon eye-witness and a former member of the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency, Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret), is a severe critic of the official account of 9/11. A contributing author to the 2006 book 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, she wrote, "I believe the [9/11] Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research."

She continued, "It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics."

Col. Kwiatkowski was working in the Pentagon on 9/11 in her capacity as Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense when Flight 77 allegedly hit the Pentagon. She wrote, "There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the Secretary of Defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a 'missile.' [7] [Secretary Rumsfeld also publicly referred to Flight 93 as the plane that was "shot down" over Pennsylvania.[8] ]

"I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... [A]ll of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.

"The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.

"The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ... More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."


And you showed Newton was irrelevant. Let's hear your mates back up this claim.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
As I've already said, the burden of proof is with the person making the claim.

You claim that Newton's third law was broken. Prove it.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Here's some more evidence:

Maj. Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret),
former Director of the U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project and 30-year veteran, had this to say about the explosion at the Pentagon on 9/11, "When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile."

Or: Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force, is a former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions and a retired commercial pilot, who flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years.

According to Capt. Wittenberg, "The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S., plain and simple."[30]

In the 2007 documentary video, 9/11 Ripple Effect,[31] he said "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower.

"I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist, to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding its design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it." [32]

Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon, Capt. Wittenberg said, "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won't go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. ... To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous ... It's roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. ... The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile."[33]

Or: Just a few dissenters, irrelevant?
Jan. 5, 2008 - Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge Official Account of 9/11 - Official Account of 9/11: "Flawed", "Absurd", "Totally Inadequate", "a Cover-up" featured statements by:

* Daniel Ellsberg, PhD, former U.S. State Department envoy to Viet Nam and Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense

* Col. Ann Wright, former Deputy Chief of Mission of U.S. Embassies in Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Afghanistan. 16 years as U.S. Diplomat. 29-year U.S. Army career.

* Fred Burks, former simultaneous interpreter for President Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and others. 18-year State Department career

* Melvin Goodman, PhD, former Senior Analyst, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, State Department. Later served as Division Chief, CIA's Office of Soviet Affairs and Professor of International Security, National War College

* Michael Springmann, retired career Foreign Service Officer. Former Consular Officer in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. 20-year career with the State Department and the International Foreign Trade Administration, Commerce Department

* George Kenney, former career Foreign Service Officer. Served as Yugoslav desk officer at the State Department headquarters.

* Michael Mennard, PhD, retired career Foreign Service Officer. Served as Regional Public Affairs Officer in India

* Edward Peck, former Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs, U.S. State Department. Later served as Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under President Ronald Reagan. Former U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission in Iraq

Dec. 13, 2007 - Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation - Official Account of 9/11: "Impossible", "A Bunch of Hogwash", "Fatally Flawed" featured statements by:

* Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology

* David Griscom, PhD, Retired Research Physicist. Served 33 years at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C.

* Joel Hirschhorn, PhD, Former Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Former Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources for the National Governors Association

* Enver Masud, MS, PE, Former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S. Department of Energy

* James Quintiere, PhD, Former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

* Dwain Deets, MS, Former Director, Aerospace Projects at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center

* Edward S. Munyak, MS, PE, Former Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs. Contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities

Dec. 4, 2007 - Eight Senior Republican Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 - "Not Possible", "a Whitewash", "False" featured statements by

* Paul Craig Roberts, PhD, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan

* Catherine Austin Fitts, Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George H.W. Bush

* Morgan Reynolds, PhD, Chief Economist of the U.S. Department of Labor under current President George W. Bush

* Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan

* Mary Schiavo, JD, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation under Presidents George H.W. Bush and William Clinton

* Barbara Honegger, Special Assistant to the Chief Domestic Policy Adviser to President Ronald Reagan and White House Policy Analyst

* Edward Peck, Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under President Ronald Reagan. Former Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the U.S. State Department. Former U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission in Iraq

* Morton Goulder, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning under Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter

Sept. 23, 2007 - Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report - Official Account of 9/11 a "Joke" and a "Cover-up" featured statements by CIA veterans Raymond McGovern, William Christison, Melvin Goodman, Robert Baer, Robert David Steele, Lynne Larkin, and David MacMichael.

Sept. 5, 2007 - U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' Pilot Questions 9/11, featured the statement of Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' pilot.

Sept. 4, 2007 - Former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member Calls for New Investigation of 9/11 featured the statement of Joel S. Hirschhorn, Ph.D., who served for 12 years as a Senior Staff Member of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and later as Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources for the National Governors Association.

Aug. 27, 2007 - National Academy of Sciences Member Calls for New 9/11 Investigation featured the statement of Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., world renowned scientist.

Aug. 21, 2007 - Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation featured the statement of James Quintiere, Ph.D., one of the world's leading fire science researchers.

July 16, 2007 - Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement featured the statement of J. Marx Ayres, former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council and former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission.


So, where is the burden of proof?

Shall I explain?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Are you seriously asking how it's possible that I misestimated a ratio of glass to steel? Of just implying that I make mistakes, so nothing I say should be trusted?
y

Yes, but it's more of a rhetorical question. It's designed to show how your ability to recognize what is put in front of you is seriously flawed. That is apparent in all senses of the word. Do you want me to indicate all the places, even if only recently, where you have misrepresented obvious facts with untruths? It would be tedious, but easy.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Lee, you need to build up your argument from basic principles. You made some very bold claims about laws of physics being broken. If you can't back those up, then moving on to individual testimony just seems like you want to change to subject.

So do you still want to claim that the Newtons laws were somehow broken, and that kinetic energy is irrelevant?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
As I've already said, the burden of proof is with the person making the claim.

You claim that Newton's third law was broken. Prove it.

No. Your assertion came first, you know the one about the official account being a reasonable account of what happened that day (never mind the 47 storey skyscraper ignored by that report and which collapsed that day, eh? That one doesn't count because you can't count to three?). That's what you said. You believe the official narrative, as represented by the Commission Report. This is 'the truth' as far as you're concerned, and the 'truth' as far as officialdom would have it, no argument required. Tell me what your best evidence is. 'That's what I've been doing' comes up a tad short of the mark. Tell us about these five 'independent' reports you cite as your 'proof'. What are they? Presumably they include these: 9/11 Commission, Purdue simulation, Fema, Nist and...?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
You claim that Newton's third law was broken. Prove it.
Oh dear. You are desperate. And the aircraft which struck the building was made of stronger than steel aluminium - that would explain a lot! You should see what happens when a flock of birds fly into a steel and concrete structure - it's carnage.
I actually find this a little sad; that you can spend so much time and energy deluding yourself. You clearly don't understand Newton's law - could someone else please explain it, he won't believe me
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
On burden of proof: it might come as a surprise to Mick, but it is quite well known that the burden of proof in a case is with the prosecution. In this case it requires the evidence to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that 'al-qaeda' with Osama bin Laden as their leader, executed the entire 9/11 attack alone. This is also pertinent to the title of this thread. Mick, unfortunately, 'doesn't want to talk' about many aspects of this case and has shown how unreliable his assertions are on many recent occasions. If you want pointers, I'll point - all you got to do is ask - or look back two or three pages. It's clear.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, A Pentagon eye-witness and a former member of the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency, Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret)

"It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics."

Col. Kwiatkowski was working in the Pentagon on 9/11.
'More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day.'

So, you know better? You know what happened, you know everything is as the government told you it was. Of course you do.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
If not the "no plane" theory, then what theory? The "unusually strong plane theory"? The "simultaneous demolition with plane impact theory", or the "Previously weakened theory".

What is your theory? Just the "looks odd, must be an inside job, theory"?
Another place where your understanding breaks down.

The fact is: I am not required to have a theory. There is already a theory in place. A theory which has been accepted as the official narrative. You think it is reasonable. I do not. Your theory is the theory, the definitive theory. The theory stands there to be either proven or falsified. If I defend an innocent defendant, I am neither required to come up with an explanation of events, nor produce the guilty party in order to defend the defendant. It's very simple. It is for you to prove the case for the prosecution. The burden of proof is for you and your theory. N'est pas?

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
No, I don't have to defend anything. I'm a debunker. I debunk things. So I debunk things that you bring up. That's all. I've made my points about your assertions, and you continually avoid them. You laugh off any actual science, like Newton's laws, kinetic energy, etc.

So I'm resting my case. If you'd like to discuss why the plane broke the exterior girders without any visible deformation, then I'd be happy to discuss that. But that's all I'm going to discuss right now.

If we can't identify the fundamental point of disagreement there, then there's really no point discussing other things.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
A lead bullet can puncture a much heavier steel plate. A steel bullet can puncture a much heavier lead plate.

[/QUOTE]


Four questions: Yeah? And? So? What?

A bullet is designed slightly differently to an aircraft, and for a different purpose. One difference: a bullet is solid, a plane is hollow. Planes are not made primarily of steel or lead, but of aluminium.

Apples and pears? More like apples and lychees.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Can you clarify something. You said:

The fact is, that aircraft would have been shredded by the network of steel columns around the perimeter.
So are you saying that none of the perimeter columns would break?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
No, I don't have to defend anything. I'm a debunker. I debunk things. So I debunk things that you bring up. That's all. I've made my points about your assertions, and you continually avoid them. You laugh off any actual science, like Newton's laws, kinetic energy, etc.

So I'm resting my case. If you'd like to discuss why the plane broke the exterior girders without any visible deformation, then I'd be happy to discuss that. But that's all I'm going to discuss right now.

If we can't identify the fundamental point of disagreement there, then there's really no point discussing other things.
Ok. You rest. The difference is clear and indicated in this previous post: I am not required to have a theory. There is already a theory in place. A theory which has been accepted as the official narrative. You think it is reasonable. I do not. Your theory is the theory, the definitive theory. The theory stands there to be either proven or falsified. If I defend an innocent defendant, I am neither required to come up with an explanation of events, nor produce the guilty party in order to defend the defendant. It's very simple. It is for you to prove the case for the prosecution. The burden of proof is for you and your theory.

If you wish not to defend it, fine, but you should not continue to discount the scores of legitimate, sensible commentators, like the Lt Col PhD who was there on the day; and if you do, you are a fool.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If you wish not to defend it, fine, but you should not continue to discount the scores of legitimate, sensible commentators, like the Lt Col PhD who was there on the day; and if you do, you are a fool.
Did any of them observe the exterior columns break with a better viewpoint than the videos?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I already answered that. It is an illogical leap, is it not?
So if the columns broke, then they would only shred the portion of the plane up to the point at which the columns broke. Agreed?

So then is our disagreement about how far the plane would go into the building before the perimeter columns broke? Can we focus on that?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I'm a debunker.

If you'd like to discuss why the plane broke the exterior girders without any visible deformation, then I'd be happy to discuss that. But that's all I'm going to discuss right now.

If we can't identify the fundamental point of disagreement there, then there's really no point discussing other things.
I'm a debunker. And I'll cry if I want to.

If you'd like to discuss why the plane broke the exterior girders without any visible deformation, then I'd be happy to discuss that. But that's all I'm going to discuss right now.
We have discussed that, ad nauseam, ref: your lie/cartoon from Purdue.

If we can't identify the fundamental point of disagreement there, then there's really no point discussing other things. But we have identified it. It's that you stand up for the official narrative as told in the Commission Report, and I say that it's a load of bullshit. Could the fundamental point of disagreement be more clear? Not really.
 

Spongebob

Active Member
6586-large.jpg

Engine and landing gear parts leave smoke trails after United flight 175 struck the south tower.

The engine portion came to rest at Church and Murray Streets; the landing gear on the roof of 45 Park Place...

FEMAAircraftparts-custom-size-426-582.jpg




Very definite statement. Please verify
You verify it. If you say the landing gear and engine portion were not found where stated prove it.

Does this look like an untouched photo?
Now the photo is a forgery?




Here is some holographic landing gear:

7-69_landing-gear-tire_west-rector-s-full.jpg

And here is a holographic life jacket:

WTCAircraftDebrisAALifeVest-full.jpg



You will be telling us that all of the WTC 1&2 steel simply turned to dust next?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
S

So then is our disagreement about how far the plane would go into the building before the perimeter columns broke? Can we focus on that?
We have been over this. Smaller parts of the shredded aircraft would have come into contact with the central core, undoubtedly - they would not, as I have explicitly stated before, have had the required remaining mass to damage the building to bring it to a state of structural failure. This is a question I have asked you many times, and many times you have not answered it. After being shredded by the exterior wall, how did the aircraft have the mass to do the serious damage to the core you are insinuating? How about now? And before you start on fire - no, that wouldn't do it either.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned


Engine and landing gear parts leave smoke trails after United flight 175 struck the south tower.

The engine portion came to rest at Church and Murray Streets; the landing gear on the roof of 45 Park Place...








You verify it. If you say the landing gear and engine portion were not found where stated prove it.



Now the photo is a forgery?




Here is some holographic landing gear:



And here is a holographic life jacket:





You will be telling us that all of the WTC 1&2 steel simply turned to dust next?
Is that right? Have you ever seen The Muppets?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
We have been over this. Smaller parts of the shredded aircraft would have come into contact with the central core, undoubtedly - they would not, as I have explicitly stated before, have had the required remaining mass to damage the building to bring it to a state of structural failure. This is a question I have asked you many times, and many times you have not answered it. After being shredded by the exterior wall, how did the aircraft have the mass to do the serious damage to the core you are insinuating? How about now? And before you start on fire - no, that wouldn't do it either.
Okay, let's say the columns broke after 10% of the mass of the plane had been "shredded" by the columns.

That still leaves 90% of the mass of the plane to enter the building and impact the core.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Spongebob;3563 You will be telling us that all of the WTC 1&2 [B said:
steel simply turned to dust[/B] next?
No, didn't you know it was shipped off to Asia for recycling? It happened during the process of destroying the crime scene and with it the evidence. Who oversaw that? Mayor Giuliani, a former prosecutor who knew all about 'preserving evidence'. Apparently, it was not evidence that was wanted. Deliberately destroying evidence is a federal offence, so I'm told.
 

Spongebob

Active Member
[video=youtube_share;e97WCFq2iB4]http://youtu.be/e97WCFq2iB4[/video]

Do multiple angles make it appear more likely that the footage was 'faked'? Or less likely?
 

Spongebob

Active Member
No, didn't you know it was shipped off to Asia for recycling? It happened during the process of destroying the crime scene and with it the evidence. Who oversaw that? Mayor Giuliani, a former prosecutor who knew all about 'preserving evidence'. Apparently, it was not evidence that was wanted. Deliberately destroying evidence is a federal offence, so I'm told.
How much steel was shipped off?

Enough weight to account for all of the steel ? or less?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Actually, it's quite surprising that all the bits of plane that were photographed in New York, you know the bits that landed in the streets, were all right next to scaffolding. Isn't that weird, what a coincidence! That wheel looks very clean after what it's just been through - and there's no scratches or gouges in the pavement around it. Hmmm, let me reconsider everything I ever learned....

Oh, and what are the dimensions of a 767 wheel?
 

Spongebob

Active Member
Okay, let's say the columns broke after 10% of the mass of the plane had been "shredded" by the columns.

That still leaves 90% of the mass of the plane to enter the building and impact the core.

Looks like the videos (all of them) appear (appear) to possibly match the "visualization of the impact" video?

And it does "appear" that what we see from these multiple angles is the bulk of the plane entering the building and some of it being ejected?

That`s what I see, in my opinion...
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Do multiple angles make it appear more likely that the footage was 'faked'? Or less likely?
Multiple angles appear beyond you. Try to understand contrails first, then move on to other things. I'm not telling you how to live, just making a suggestion x
 

Spongebob

Active Member
Actually, it's quite surprising that all the bits of plane that were photographed in New York, you know the bits that landed in the streets, were all right next to scaffolding. Isn't that weird, what a coincidence! That wheel looks very clean after what it's just been through - and there's no scratches or gouges in the pavement around it. Hmmm, let me reconsider everything I ever learned....

Oh, and what are the dimensions of a 767 wheel?

Must have been planted then? That is what you are implying...?

Why would they go to the trouble to "plant" a wheel of the wrong dimensions?


the bits that landed in the streets, were all right next to scaffolding. Isn't that weird
Seatincar91104-full.jpg

Where is the scaffolding in this picture? Are you slipping lee?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Looks like the videos (all of them) appear (appear) to possibly match the "visualization of the impact" video?

And it does "appear" that what we see from these multiple angles is the bulk of the plane entering the building and some of it being ejected?

That`s what I see, in my opinion...
And where does the burden of proof lie in all this? Have you read the account known as The 9/11 Commission Report - do you think it is a reasonable account of what happened that day? Come to think of it, have you read this thread?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top