|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 209)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh, sorry. i forgot that people photographed/filmed at different times with different quality/types of video will always look exactly the same, even if the said video is changed between PAL and NTSC once or twice. people don't age or gain/lose weight or anything if they're captured on video.
must be like a modern dorian gray. |
additionally, the picture of osama in the gold and white his mouth is also open at that time, and in his army gear his mount isn't open. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
and this one? |
do you notice that this is the ONLY photo from that video you fools use? the video goes for ages, and yet one of your equally dishonest wits figured they'd make much from them if they used this particular shot. were all the other al qaida members in the video imposters as well? :rolleyes:
ive already posted a long and involved complete and utter debunking of the retarded "fat osama" theory, if you give a you can search this thread for yourself. im not gonna bother with yet another disingenuous, uneducated tool.
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
additionally, the picture of osama in the gold and white his mouth is also open at that time, and in his army gear his mount isn't open. |
hahahahaha. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
and this one? |
good point, i knew it couldn't be true, i guess the two in these pictures aren't the same person either (notice the double chin in the top and the sexy body in the bottom picture):
phewwwww....i was scared for a few years, since you've clearly shown us that a person's looks can never change, i can still have my high school fantasies about brittany. |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i managed to find the article b.s.e.
how you like those apples?
here's another shot from that same video
 |
not bad apples at all. thanks for the link.
On the bright side, the article incriminates Bush on grounds of treason. :gsmile: |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yep, no fires to see here!
 |
PHOTOCHOP, old news. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
PHOTOCHOP, old news. |
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
I wasn't talking about the WTC. The focus of the conversation was the Pentagon. Which was struck by Flight 77 at 9:37.
No points for reading comprehension. Nice work with the insults. Wiz. |
I will admit, your post was so incoherent that it was hard to follow. One minute you are talking F-16s, the next F-15s. First you talk about DC, then New York, then planes flying mistakenly to New York and back to DC. However, had you ever bothered to read the link I posted about NORAD you could have saved yourself from looking like an idiot by posting that false incoherent babble.
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
Timelines, hey?
9:24 AM : The FAA, who 28 minutes earlier had discovered Flight 77 off course and heading east over West Virginia, reportedly notifies NORAD. A Pentagon spokesman says, "The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way." [50 miles out.... 30 miles out... 10 miles out...]
9:28 AM: Air traffic control learns that Flight 93 has been hijacked.
9:38 AM: Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon. [42 minutes or more after contact was lost, one hour after NORAD notification of first hijacking.
Read it twice this time. :gsmile:
..good luck with the math. Wiz. |
Read it twice? Had you even bothered to read the link I posted once you could have saved yourself from looking like a tard but here we go.
Not only does your timeline contain multiple inaccuracies but parts of it are just flat out false. But then you truthers don't have much need for real and actual facts do you? Let me help you by reconstructing the actual timeline:
9:24 NORAD scrambles the fighters from Langley to intercept Flight 11 which they are mistakenly told is still in the air and headed to DC. However the pilots are not given a reason for a scramble and the Navy ATC handling them directs them east, over the Atlantic Ocean, to a military training airspace called Whiskey 386.
9:34 In the course of a call to Washington Centre, NEADS finds out about the hijacking of AA77. However, the only information NORAD was given was that Indianapolis Centre has completely lost the flight, no radar contact, no transponder. They can give no information as to its heading.
9:34 NORAD notices the F-16s are headed in the wrong direction, and contact the Navy ATC. NORAD instructs the Navy ATC to have the fighters fly to Baltimore.
9:35 NORAD receives a report from Boston Centre that an unidentified aircraft is in Washington DC 6 miles away from the White House and headed away from it.
9:36 NORAD instructs the Navy ATC that it is assuming emergency military control of the fighters and orders them to the White House at top speed.
9:37 Flight 77 hits the Pentagon
9:39 After several transmissions from the hijackers, Cleveland Centre is now aware that UA93 has been hijacked. However they do not notify the military – standard procedure in the event of a hijacking is to hand control over to the FBI. 9:39 not 9:28 dip.
So the fighters from Langley were never in any position to do anything. The most important point here, which of course you have ignored, is that when the fighters took off at 9:24 they did not head directly to Washington D.C. When they were scrambled at 9:24 it was not because of Flight 77 or 93, NORAD had no idea yet that they were even hijacked yet. They were to be flown to Baltimore and held in case Flight 11 needed to be intercepted. However, because of the confusion of the situation and a lack of proper communication to the fighters they were sent by the Navy ATC out over the Atlantic Ocean instead of to Baltimore. By the time NORAD noticed this there was only three minutes left before the plane was to hit the Pentagon. NORAD did not take actual control of the fighters and issue the order to redirect at top speed until 1 minute before the plane hit.
If the F-16s were at their 1500mph top speed that very second and already turned towards DC they could only have covered 25 miles in the one minute that was left before the plane hit. And remember they weren't at Langley which is 150 miles from the White House, they were coming from even further away out over the Atlantic Ocean. There was no possible way the fighters had any chance of reaching DC before Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
I find it amusing that people like you and Xanax can't have a debate without resorting to insults and slander.
|
I find it amusing that people like you and cretinrot can't ever post even one actual fact or piece of documented proof to back up anything you say. Honestly, what you get from pkc and I is better that what you deserve. You come into this thread and make some kind of baseless claim that is at best supported by nothing, at worst supported by lies, false evidence, out of context quotes, or opinions from people who have no credentials and are not experts in the field they are speaking about. Look at the two posts I just discussed above. Not only did you have the timeline wrong, but you didn't even bother to do even basic research about where the fighters went when they took off before you posted that drivel. I got my timeline from the tapes of NORAD communications that day. Where did you get your information, pull it out of your ass? , I don't even know what the point of either post was, I just know it was full of lies and inaccuracies. I rebutted that with a detailed list of the actual facts of what happened that day. What you deserved was a response like "your information is all wrong head, come back when you do some research get the facts straight".
And what debate are you talking about? None of you truthers will debate anything. What you do is come in the thread and post some bull like you did here, full of lies and inaccuracies, and then when presented with real evidence that refutes your claim you just ignore the post and move on to the next baseless claim. , I'm getting called out on my false claims about the NORAD timeline and when and where the fighters were sent, better move on and make a baseless claim that WTC 7 was blown up and as usual I'll support it with no evidence. If you want it to be a debate then account for why your posts never have any actual real proof to back up what you are claiming. I'm curious to see how you account for all the inaccuracies in your posts about the fighters and the NORAD timeline? Did you not bother to do any research or did you just flat out knowingly post false information. Maybe if you would stay off the truther websites and stop using them as sources you wouldn't come off looking like as ass so often.
Until you truthers stop acting like halfwits, tards, morons, and tinfoil hat wearing nuts I'm not going to stop calling you that.
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
A major aspect of 9/11 has been excluded from the entire U.S. media after September 11th, and was also omitted from The 9/11 Commission Report. The sudden fall to earth, on September 11th, 2001, of World Trade Center Building 7. Not hit by airplane or significant debris, 300 feet shorter than closest Twin Tower, and with just a few small fires burning within it, at 5:20PM EDT this massive concrete and steel-framed 47-story skyscraper imploded into its own footprint in less than seven seconds. Its rapid implosion had all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition, and the World Trade Center leaseholder, Larry Silverstein, stated in so many words that the building had been collapsed by demolition. It takes weeks, if not months, to prepare the demolition of a building as large as WTC 7; this implosion could not have been engineered and implemented in seven chaotic hours on September 11th. Therefore, a question emerges:
Who had the means and expertise to engineer such a demolition and acquire needed materiel, and who had access to WTC Building 7 PRIOR TO September 11, 2001 in order to place the explosives?
|
Christ on a bike here we go again, another post of classic truther crap. Anyone who even goes there with WTC 7 is a complete and total asshat and deserves to be called out as such. Where in the did you even get this information that WTC 7 was not hit by significant debris and had few small fires burning? Did you pull it out of your ass? How about some real evidence, say from NIST investigators?
| quote: | "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down." |
Yeah, 25% of the depth of the building carved out of a space 10 stories high, that is minimal damage from debris? ing idiot.
Oh and lets not forget the small fires:
| quote: | A fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse. |
Care to address the inaccuracies in your WTC 7 post? I can post more evidence if you want to look like an even bigger moron. God damn, you are the worst kind of tinfoil hat wearing truther tards. Is everything a conspiracy for you? What possible conspiracy theory can you even come up with for blowing up WTC 7? By the time it collapsed WTC 7 was empty, what reason could anyone have for wanting to blow it up?
I honestly think I'm about done with this thread. Or at a minimum I'm done with spending my time to do actual research to refute the baseless claims full of lies and false "evidence" that you truthers post in this thread. What is the point, as soon as one of your lies is debunked you just move on and make another one. Maybe I'll just start taking the same approach as you guys.
And I'm still waiting for either you or cretinrot to explain what happened at the Pentagon if Flight 77 didn't hit it and where Flight 77, its crew, and passengers are if they didn't crash into the Pentagon. You do realize that the majority of your wit truther brohters and sisters don't even buy the no plane theory right? That they think the whole no plane theory was introduced into the truther movement to completely discredit truthers because the claim is so ridiculous that in calls into question everything you morons say? How amusing is that, the consipracy theorists think that there is a conspiracy theory to discredit them. The you people come up with is so ridiculous that nobody needs to help you discredit yourselves. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Holy , this thread is still alive?
Why God, why?!?!?!?
This thing is seriously one giant, ugly monster on the board that just won't ing go away. Who the hell is gonna read through 211 pages of this crap?
Enough already. Somebody torch this sucker. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
PHOTOCHOP, old news. |
Why is it a photochop, because you say it is?
Care to address what happened at the Pentagon for me or are you just going to ignore that since you have no solid evidence to show that anything but Flight 77 hit it? This is now my 4th request (see b.s.e, I'm trying to debate here) |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
Care to address what happened at the Pentagon for me or are you just going to ignore that since you have no solid evidence to show that anything but Flight 77 hit it? This is now my 4th request (see b.s.e, I'm trying to debate here) |
Heh, sorry I don't hang around in forums all day..
Do you really think a plane made that hole? :conf:
I don't. That looks like a missle hit it. Where are the wings? :stongue:
The "pilot" Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot. Yet he flew a 747 at 530 mp/h 2 feet about the ground, into the Pentagon? |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
On a seperate note, the US dropped all charges against 9/11 suspect detained at Guantánamo. No explanation at all given.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/200.../usa.guantanamo
| quote: |
The US has dropped charges against one of the six al-Qaida suspects charged with the 9/11 attacks, bolstering critics of the controversial military tribunal system set up to try the detainees.
The Pentagon official in charge of military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay dropped the death penalty case against Mohammed al-Qahtani without explanation. Lawyers for al-Qahtani attributed the move to clear evidence that the detainee was tortured while in US custody.
"Mr al-Qahtani never made a single statement that was not extracted through torture or the threat of torture," the Centre for Constitutional Rights, which represented al-Qahtani, said.
"The unconscionable techniques used on him are well-documented and were authorised directly by the White House."
The Saudi-born al-Qahtani was brutally interrogated for 48 straight days at Guantánamo in 2002 using a plan approved by former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Charges against him were dismissed "without prejudice", but the Pentagon claims the right to reinstate them at any time and to keep holding him at Guantánamo.
Bush administration lawyers who gave legal approval for the torture of al-Qahtani have exposed themselves to possible war crimes charges, according to UK human rights lawyer Philippe Sands, whose findings were first reported in the Guardian last month.
Tribunals are continuing for the other five suspects accused of aiding the 9/11 attacks, including alleged mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, whom the CIA interrogated using the simulated drowning tactic known as waterboarding.
The dismissed charges against al-Qahtani raise the spectre of more legal setbacks for the Bush administration in the five remaining 9/11 cases. Mohammed's lawyers have said they will challenge evidence against him that was extracted using torturous methods.
The trials of the five suspects are not expected to begin until next year. Officials at Guantánamo are considering televising the proceedings for families of Americans killed in the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The 9/11 cases could be further complicated by the barring of the senior legal adviser at Guantánamo from the trial of a detainee accused of driving for Osama bin Laden.
A military judge in that case ruled that US air force General Thomas Hartmann imposed improper bias on prosecutors. |
|
|
|
|
|
