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

[The Pious Pawn]

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 to !!

coming to the christmas party this year ?

 

[WouldBe]

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.

Sorry that's bollox I said no such thing.

 

[WouldBe]

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.

So do I. Unfortunately testing only 3 sections of outer column proves nothing.

If thermate was used to bring the towers down where is the evidence from testing that the metal was heated to 2000C? Your own arguement shows the (tested) steel never exceeded 250C so thermate can't possibly have been used.

Each tower had 47 central columns, not hundreds as you claim. Yet again you are just speculating, to try to support your conspiracy theory.

Yes the towers did have 47 central columns. However they were built in sections probably only 10 - 20 ft long. Any longer and you wouldn't have been able to get them down the streets and round corners not to mention the weight of the things. The sections would have been bolted / rivited / welded together to make the final height of 1000ish feet.

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

Virtually being the operative word. This suggests the towers experienced resistance on the way down which is contradictary to Dr Jones explanation.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

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?

Occam's Razor every time!

 

[Crispy]

Occam's razor tends towards truth with increasing numbers of individual events/items of evidence.

eg. the probablility of one unlikely explanation being true might be 1/10. For two such unlikely explanations, the probability of them both being true is smaller than 1/10. and so on.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

you to !!

coming to the christmas party this year ?

Yep, i've got my dress for it and everything

 

[squeegee]

911 Petition

This is as short as I could summarise it. I've left out loads. I know cut and paste is frowned upon but in this case I hope an exception is made as these questions and demands are absolutely central to the whole 911 "conspiracy theory" and I would like detractors of theories to tell me why these are not valid questions and demands. Please.

Scholars Call for Release of 9/11 Information
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND
OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Immediate release of the full Pentagon surveillance tapes and release of the video tape seized by FBI agents minutes after the Pentagon was hit, from the fuel service station near the Pentagon

Immediate release of 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST, largely from private photographers, regarding the collapses of WTC buildings on 9/11/2001.

<editor: cut and paste removed>


Thank you. See you in the morning, hopefully

 

[Crispy]

Yes, we read the link. Thank you squeegee.

 

[snouty warthog]

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.

hmmm... I wonder what the CCTV footage (from four separate cameras), that the FBI is withholding, of the 'plane' crashing into the pentagon would show... 5 frames released, none showing the plane... and later, another few frames, again not showing the plane...

why are they withholding this, as releasing it would prove that it wasn't a missile...? as some so-called conspiracy theorists are positting... even though families of those who died in that crash are calling for the footage to be released? for me, that was the first thing that seemed fishy about this...

and what about the 3 recovered black box recorders, again, confiscated by the FBI? would they provide clear evidence? again, we don't know, as they are not releasing the information stored on them. is there info on there that they don't want to become public knowledge? why not?

I don't think 'very few' people claim a conspiracy on the part of the US govt & intelligence agencies, in one way or another. in a recent poll, 36% of americans state that they think the US govt had advance knowledge of 911, and that they were complicit in some way. and I think there are an even greater number who do not conclude govt complicity, but have questions about this event that are not being answered...
[source]

ed- you are always claiming there are no facts in these posts... however, it is a fact that the FBI are withholding footage of this event. why do you think they would not release that footage, if it backs up the official fairyta... sorry, story?

clearly, a great atrocity was committed on that day. forgive me if I allow my rational mind to question just who is responsible, and to what end...

 

[Crispy]

Question, but do not assume you have the answers. I think we're all waiting for those.

 

[snouty warthog]

I don't assume, but joining the dots, there's a lot of holes in the official story. why is that? I draw my own conclusions... as for answers, we will wait a long time... but time is running short. if a government can permit these atrocities to occur, whether by default or by design, the future does not look a happy place...

 

[snouty warthog]

PS ...do you have any answers as to why the FBI might withhold evidence, crispy?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

PS ...do you have any answers as to why the FBI might withhold evidence, crispy?

Some of it because the families of the people who died asked for it not to be released.

 

[snouty warthog]

I already covered that. families are calling for the evidence to be released... is releasing footage of the explosion any less upsetting than releasing footage of the plane in flight?

 

[Crispy]

PS ...do you have any answers as to why the FBI might withhold evidence, crispy?

Because they're a bunch of paranoid, secretive people who don't like sharing information or power? I don't know. Once again, assuming or suspecting motives is not the same as proving them.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I already covered that. families are calling for the evidence to be released... is releasing footage of the explosion any less upsetting than releasing footage of the plane in flight?

No you didn't, for you to have covered it you'd have to have stated that more wanted the details released than wanted them kept confidential, and that the suffering caused to those that did not want them to be released would be less than the suffering caused by keeping them confidential.

I see none of that, nor do i see any acknowledgement that you even knew that some of the families do not want that sort of information to be released.

 

[snouty warthog]

@crispy-
in that case, why release any footage?

@Bob-
I again ask this question; is releasing footage of the explosion any less upsetting than releasing footage of the plane in flight?

 

[look again]

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.

Throwing out insults makes your position look even weaker, which is not easy, but I think you have just managed it.

 

[Crispy]

hmmm. i spy a slippery slope of insults and mudslinging. think I'll call it a day for now.

 

[look again]

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"

I was the one who asked the question, which still hasn't been answered. If we take into account what happened to Romero after he retracted his explosive statement, then it's fair to say it was the smart thing to do.

Do you think it was just a coincidence he got a high profile job in the Bush administration less than a month later?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

@crispy-
in that case, why release any footage?

@Bob-
I again ask this question; is releasing footage of the explosion any less upsetting than releasing footage of the plane in flight?

Ask away, i'm merely answering another one of your questions. They don't release some of it because they were asked not to. But by all means ignore that, since you don't like it it's clearly irrelevant.If you want details on why some footage is considered to be releasable then why not ask the FBI. Heaven forbid that you do something other than read prison plannet though.

Look again: So that'd be a "Yes Bob, you're right i did manage to miss the bolded section, god i'm such an idiot, how did i miss them, being in bold and all?"

 

[look again]

So do I. Unfortunately testing only 3 sections of outer column proves nothing.

It proves that no steel that was examined reached temperatures anywhere near hot enough to weaken the steel. Any claims otherwise are just wild speculation.

If thermate was used to bring the towers down where is the evidence from testing that the metal was heated to 2000C? Your own arguement shows the (tested) steel never exceeded 250C so thermate can't possibly have been used.

I never said thermate was used. If the rest of the steel wasn't quickly sold and shipped off to be melted down, then we wouldn't have this problem.

Virtually being the operative word. This suggests the towers experienced resistance on the way down which is contradictary to Dr Jones explanation.

According to well accepted calculations free-fall speed would have been 9.2 seconds. The 9/11 commission stated that the south tower came down in 10 seconds, which is virtually free-fall speed. In effect the buildings came down at the rate of 11 floors per second, and destroys the pancake theory, which relies on the lower floors providing resistance.

 

[look again]

Some of it because the families of the people who died asked for it not to be released.

What about the families who had to sue to get the 911 tapes released?

http://www.freepressinternational.com/911-families-sue-911-tapes.html

Look again: So that'd be a "Yes Bob, you're right i did manage to miss the bolded section, god i'm such an idiot, how did i miss them, being in bold and all?"

My reply wasn't even to you, yet you feel the need to interfere. You obviously don't agree with all the information I have presented in this thread, yet you seem to be unable to discuss why I am wrong, so instead you feel the need to resort to childish insults.

 

[fela fan]

And still you, Jazzz or Squegee have come up with an answer to my question about how you smuggle in upwards of a ton of explosives, place them accurately enough to achieve even a semi-controlled demolition AND wire them up to timers accurate enough to blow them all in the correct sequence, and all this installed while the building was occupied and blown while the building was on fire.

I have never once entertained the idea of a controlled demolition, or talked about explosives or anything like that kyser. I have never put forward any method of how the buildings may have collapsed save that planes flew into them.

I have questioned the collapse of WTC7, but it seems fairly open that it was called to be collapsed.

Y'see, you're getting mixed up here mate. I am in the camp that refuses to accept staggering incompetence (both in the lead-up to the day, and during the attacks themselves) by the US, who therefore has read fucking tonnes of stuff from many and varied sources, and who, having decided on the balance of everything that i've read to accept LIHOP.

The trouble with LIHOP is that as soon as you accept that, you find it is much more likely to have been MIHOP. Thus that is my corner. Not a scrap of evidence mind, but no-one here has anyway.

I await the day it all comes out. A lot of my posts on this topic are like this one: to refute wrong positions that folk attribute to me. Never mind, it's no big problem.

 

[editor]

Strictly speaking, there's no evidence that the planes weren't remote controlled.

Strictly speaking, there's no evidence that the planes weren't taken over by pixies either.

 

[laptop]

My reply wasn't even to you, yet you feel the need to interfere.

It's a discussion board. The way it works is, we all join in.

If you want a private argument with someone, I suggest you inquire about their hourly rate. Expect around €50/hr.

 

[editor]

I've left out loads.

But not enough, as usual.

 

[editor]

Oh, and could someone point me in the direction of any new, credibly-sourced evidence being posted here please, otherwise......

 

[Loki]

Hmm how much of this thread is actually about this topic, namely "Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks"? Seems to have gone off in all different directions.

 

[laptop]

Last in?