9/11 military tapes released - Pentagon lied to the 9/11 commission

[editor]

Scolars Call For Release of 9/11 Information

Anyone care to call THESE people loons?

Lemme see. The "Founder and Co-Chair" for this "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" outfit is a James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

Now he couldn't be related to the same JFK conspiracy-obsessed, James H. Fetzer from this site with a PH.D. in Philosophy could he?

Or the same modest chap who declared his new book to be

"a magnificent achievement that may very well stand as an enduring turning point in JFK assassination research, namely the definitive proof that the Zapruder film was faked...."

(his " magnificent achievement " failed spectacularly in its aims btw)

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Unfortunately time and again parts of the conspiracy have been debunked by reliable sources and just get ignored by the conspiracists.

What? You mean like when some self-professed 'Avionics Expert' spent days telling me how it would be impossible to remotely control 737's from the ground because to do so would require some sort of cartoon 'Acme remote-o-matic' bolt on, rather than just a couple of lines of code and the utilisation of the existing bi-directional data link that, er, doesn't exist or something...?

 

[WouldBe]

What? You mean like when some self-professed 'Avionics Expert' spent days telling me how it would be impossible to remotely control 737's from the ground because to do so would require some sort of cartoon 'Acme remote-o-matic' bolt on, rather than just a couple of lines of code and the utilisation of the existing bi-directional data link that, er, doesn't exist or something...?

Quite right. I'd forgotten you can fly a plane by e-mail.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Quite right. I'd forgotten you can fly a plane by e-mail.

You seem to have forgotten how spectacularly WRONG you were. In your own 'area of expertise', too.

Do I have to serve you up your liver again?

If you can be so utterly misinformed on a subject you claim to be an 'expert' in, how am I supposed to believe anything else you write?

 

[WouldBe]

You seem to have forgotten how spectacularly WRONG you were. In your own 'area of expertise', too.

Do I have to serve you up your liver again?

If you can be so utterly misinformed on a subject you claim to be an 'expert' in, how am I supposed to believe anything else you write?

You mean the schematics of the system that I posted up that show no link between the bi-directional data stream and the flight control system, a schematic that comes from the manufacturer of the system, is wrong?

Pull the other one.

Even if you could use this system to fly the planes remotely what good is that as the conspiraloons would have it that no planes crashed into the pentagon or the WTC.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

You mean the schematics of the system that I posted up that show no link between the bi-directional data stream and the flight control system, a schematic that comes from the manufacturer of the system, is wrong?

Your memory seems about as reliable as your 'expertise'. Happen to keep a copy of that, eh?

Even if you could use this system to fly the planes remotely what good is that as the conspiraloons would have it that no planes crashed into the pentagon or the WTC.

Which 'conspiraloons' are you refering to?

My view is, and remains, that only a total fucktard officialoon would dismiss the possibility of taking control of the aircraft in question from the ground on the basis of technical impossibility. Which is what you were arguing at the time.

 

[Techno303]

You mean the schematics of the system that I posted up that show no link between the bi-directional data stream and the flight control system, a schematic that comes from the manufacturer of the system, is wrong?

Pull the other one.

Even if you could use this system to fly the planes remotely what good is that as the conspiraloons would have it that no planes crashed into the pentagon or the WTC.

Or that it would be impossible to pull off such a difficult manoeuvre.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

You know, what we really need is a cartoon caricature of a 'conspiraloon' to suggest that such a thing as piloting a Boeing airliner into the side of the World Trade Centre via remote control from the ground were possible - perhaps in the format of a popular x-files type TV show...

..that way we could all have a really good laugh at such a notion.

Uh-oh... HOLY SHIT!!!

 

[squeegee]

How about the bit where you call me "Mr Hooligan" you fucking idiotic, truth-denying moron?

Now are you going to back it up or not?

is about all I can say to that. You've lost the argument. Again!

 

[Bob_the_lost]

is about all I can say to that. You've lost the argument. Again!

Could have sworn that you are the one to look like a tit in this one, but hell i'm probably on the CIA payroll.

 

[editor]

Could have sworn that you are the one to look like a tit in this one, but hell i'm probably on the CIA payroll.

You'd be right, too.

He's a mendacious worm who who hasn't the honesty or dignity to apologise for his ridiculous and offensive accusation.

 

[editor]

You know, what we really need is a cartoon caricature of a 'conspiraloon' to suggest that such a thing as piloting a Boeing airliner into the side of the World Trade Centre via remote control from the ground were possible -

Don't forget the mysteriously vanishing planes, passengers and crew, the perfectly faked calls and all those ground crew, control tower operatives, airline staff and all the thousands of others involved in sush a grand deception all miraculously keeping Mum forever!

 

[Psychonaut]

It's not even that much fun taking the piss out of the conspiraloons anymore - feels too much like mocking the afflicted! Visiting some of the websites that get linked to feels like going to an Asperger's convention...

Well i have Aspergers, im supposed to have difficulty with double meanings & metaphors...

Yet i was the ONLY poster clever enough to get Azrael23's sheep-swing video. (which i thought was obvious)

 

[look again]

Be sure to point out where I have posted up 'blatant disinformation' or apologise, please.

You said and I quote...

He's just tried to back up his his wild claims about the supposed controlled demolition of the WTC citing someone with a Ph.D in Psychology

This is blatant disinformation, as he has a masters degree in engineering.

 

[squeegee]

Scholars Call For Release of 9/11 Information

Maybe I'm missing something, but is there any mention of remote-controlled planes on this link? I think it's just a call for a proper investigation. Which is all I want. And if some of the abusers would acknowledge the same, then there wouldn't be need for abuse.

Oh sorry, calling me a mendacious worm is just "robust" language. Tell me again who the mendacious worm is?

And so a senior academic can be called a loon because he challenges the Kennedy official story. And that's not slanderous? Yeah, that's how it works. ANYONE, no matter how educated, is called a loon, because they don't agree with you Editor. That's not good enough, is it? There are many others on that list, government, military, family of the bereaved. But, hey, ignore them, like you avoid a real debate. Just on logic and reason, your response falls flat. But at least you tried.

And as for your continual baiting of me, if I'm prepared to let it go, why can't you? The last time I apologised you said it wasn't authentic. That behaviour is all too common with you, unfortunately.

But if I could take back all my off topic, personal insults, no matter how aggrieved I have been and how justified I feel in responding, I would. But I can't. All I can hope is that you let it go and avoid the insults and stick to debating the topic of the thread.

 

[look again]

Got a shred of evidence to support that claim?

I didn't make any claim, as all I did was ask you this question...

You don't think it's very possible he was gently encouraged to re-evaluate his position?

The fact of the matter is that less than a month after he retracted his explosive statement, he found himself working for the Bush administration.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Christ on a cross, i have used bloody cutting charges, i've seen thermite used to cut iron bars, neither of them look anything like that bloody film.

You haven't read that link the ed provided earlier have you? Nor have you tried to think about the off the cuff reasons i mentioned earlier. No matter how much you try there are some basic rules you can't avoid or ignore, i do know some of those rules thanks to the little explosives training i have.

Why did he retract it? Probably because it was a load of shite and he realised it.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

You'd be right, too.

He's a mendacious worm who who hasn't the honesty or dignity to apologise for his ridiculous and offensive accusation.

That's a matter of opinion. I personally find squeegee's posts a lot more informative, interesting and polite than yours, for instance. Anything but mendacious. I personally find your own posting style to be somewhat thuggish, bullying, lacking in logical and intellectual integrity, repetitive and tiresome, too. Go on, tell me that I'm 'quite welcome to post elsewhere'. *yawn*

Don't forget the mysteriously vanishing planes, passengers and crew, the perfectly faked calls and all those ground crew, control tower operatives, airline staff and all the thousands of others involved in sush a grand deception all miraculously keeping Mum forever!

What the fuck you are on about here I don't know.

I'll repeat, for the benefit of the intellectually impaired:

My view is, and remains, that only a total fucktard officialoon would dismiss the possibility of taking control of the aircraft in question from the ground on the basis of technical impossibility.

Are you dismissing the possibility of taking control of the aircraft in question from the ground on the basis of technical impossibility?

 

[look again]

That should be "16 perimeter column sections" of which there would be over 1000 in each building so the fact that only 3 showed signs of low heating doesn't mean that all 1000+ were not subjected to heating.

These were the only sections that were tested. So you are resorting to speculating that the steel was subject to higher temperatures, which is exactly what you claim conspiracy theorists are forced to do.

I prefer to rely on scientific evidence to back up my claims.

Only 3 central core sections were examined out of the 100's used in each tower so again the fact that these 3 show no signs of heatind doesn't mean that none of the sections were subject to heating.

Each tower had 47 central columns, not hundreds as you claim. Yet again you are just speculating, to try to support your conspiracy theory. I suggest people have a look at this video called 'Building the World Trade Center', which shows how incredibly strong these massive towers were.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4334991174539603857&q=wtc+center

The fireproofing was a spray on foam. What do you think happens to this weak foam when hit by 80 tonnes of aircraft? If you think it happily sits there abd resists the impact your dafter than you sound.

I never said I thought the foam just sat there, but there was never any evidence produced to back up the claim that the fireproofing was removed.

Many other steel-framed skyscrapers have suffered massive fires spanning more than 24 hours in one case, and yet none of them collapsed. The fireproofing is only supposed to provide a few hours protection at best, so all these other skyscrapers suffered huge fires for many hours, without any fireproofing.

The south tower was on fire for less than an hour, yet it suffered a sudden and total collapse, at virtually free-fall speed.

 

[editor]

Are you dismissing the possibility of taking control of the aircraft in question from the ground on the basis of technical impossibility?

I'm dismissing the possibility that:
(a) the plane was taken over and no one apparently noticed
(b) the pilots would keep it to themselves
(c) no one onboard troubled to mention that their plane had been flying by remote control during the calls made from the planes
(d) people on the plane forgot to mention that they had been seen the hijackers
(e) all the people involved in planning, fitting and controlling the aircraft to kill thouands of their fellow Americans have never mentioned it since

No credible source in the aviation industry has come forward saying that the planes were flown by remote control and there isn't a single scrap of credible evidence to support such an assertion - but lots to suggest that the planes were indeed hijacked.

Unless, of course, you've got some damning, credibly sourced information to share on the matter that proves the existence of these remote control planes?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Each tower had 47 central columns, not hundreds as you claim. Yet again you are just speculating, to try to support your conspiracy theory. I suggest people have a look at this video called 'Building the World Trade Center', which shows how incredibly strong these massive towers were.

You are an idiot, you missed the bolded sections bit then? The 47 core colums aren't 47 individual Metal I beams hundreds of meters long. I'd advise you to work it out for yourself but i've no faith in your ability to do so. So instead i'll just say : Give up, you're out of your leauge.

 

[editor]

Each tower had 47 central columns, not hundreds as you claim.

Yes. But they were supported by 240 thin steel columns.

As secondary supports, each tower had 240 thin steel columns sheathing the facade, a signature feature allowing the number of internal columns to be very small for such huge structures. The result was super-tall, super-wide office buildings with uniquely large expanses of column-free floorspace.
http://experts.about.com/e/c/co/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center.htm

 

[A Dashing Blade]

. . .
You don't think it's very possible he was gently encouraged to re-evaluate his position?
. . .

Which do YOU think is more likely look again (ie I'm asking you for your personal opinion, no wriggling out using "I'm not in full possession of the facts" etc)

a) He was "gently encouraged to re-evaluate his position"
b) He changed his mind

Simple, one letter response required consisting of the letter "a" or the letter "b"

 

[Loki]

Shit why can't the conspiraloons do their own research. Now we're reduced to explaining the architecture of the buildings and the fundamentals of explosives

I remember having to do the emailing for Jazzz once because he couldn't be bothered to check his own facts with the authorities. Who promptly cleared up his questions. Not that I ever got any thanks.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

You're making an assumption here: Nowhere have I suggested that there were no 'hijackers' on board, merely that we have no basis to dismiss the notion that the people in the cockpits may not have had control.

I'm dismissing the possibility that:
(a) the plane was taken over and no one apparently noticed

Well who would notice? The people in the cockpit?

(b) the pilots would keep it to themselves

Again - how would they communicate such an occurance? Black box voice recorder??? Ahh...

(c) no one onboard troubled to mention that their plane had been flying by remote control during the calls made from the planes

One thing that is patently clear from the recording of Betty Ong's (Flight attendant on F11) phonecall is that they could not communicate with, nor gain access to, the cockpit.

(d) people on the plane forgot to mention that they had been seen the hijackers

Sorry, you'll have to rephrase that point into something intelligable.

(e) all the people involved in planning, fitting and controlling the aircraft to kill thouands of their fellow Americans have never mentioned it since

All what people? Why do you continue to maintain that there would have to be an army of operatives to carry out such an act? What is this supposition based on? Are you some sort of conspiracy-obsessed loon?

Every time this question comes up, you attempt to paint a cartoon of some huge clandestine operation involving bolting some sort of 'Acme Hijack-o-matic' addition that would take a team of technicians to install and operate and that could not fail to be noticed by someone.

This is utter bollocks.

The point here - as (eventually) conceded by our own resident *expert* on avionics - is that the controlling of such aircraft from the ground could be achieved in the realm of software, with no need for any physical addition to the flight control systems. No more than a few lines of code.

Fine, you might not like the idea, find it preposterous or whatever, but if the only basis for dismissing it is the sort of specious reasoning above, I'll *respectfully* disagree.

I'll keep an open mind on the possibility untill someone comes up with a logically sound reason to dismiss it.

 

[editor]

This is utter bollocks.
.

So no evidence at all of the plane being flown by remote control. Nothing. In fact, you haven't even got anything that even suggests that's what happened, so you may as well be claiming that the pixies took over the flight.

Oh, and how come not a single soul on the flight - passengers, cabin crew, pilots etc - mentioned the fact that the plane had suddenly been taken over by mysterious forces, despite calls being made from the plane? Any ideas, Einstein?

 

[Crispy]

Well, if the flight deck is closed, and no one can get in, no passenger could ever know. I suppose you could sabotage the radios too, so the pilots couldn't tell anyone.

Strictly speaking, there's no evidence that the planes weren't remote controlled. Therefore it cannot be entirely discounted. However, when trying to work out what happened based on limited information, as we are here, then you have to say, what is more likely?

 

[WouldBe]

My view is, and remains, that only a total fucktard officialoon would dismiss the possibility of taking control of the aircraft in question from the ground on the basis of technical impossibility.

If the planes were flown by remote control show us the aircraft debris at the crash sites.

 

[WouldBe]

Strictly speaking, there's no evidence that the planes weren't remote controlled. Therefore it cannot be entirely discounted. However, when trying to work out what happened based on limited information, as we are here, then you have to say, what is more likely?

There's no evidence they weren't suspended underneath a UFO either.

 

[rocketman]

Conspiracy theory

Though clearly there was a conspiracy of some kind for 9.11, either on the part of Al Quaeda, or (as very few people claim and there is little clear evidence for) the US gov. The conspiracy of silence on the part of authorities implies a second conspiracy, too, one of making political capital from the incident.