911: What makes you suspicious - now with added extra poll option!

[Jazzz]

If you can hit a runway (and even shit pilots can do this or they die) you can hit the pentagon - easily - it's a much bigger target.

The Washington Post didn't agree with this assessment of the manner in which the Pentagon was struck on September 12, 2001, and neither do I now.

So what you're saying is that turning off the transponders was useless to the hijackers attempts to hamper the intercept response but was crucial to the 'insiders' attempts to hamper the intercept response. Is it just when this subject comes up, or is your brain permanently on holidays?

Yes, on it's own, it's worthless. They would have no reason to think they had suddenly escaped tracking. It only makes sense as part of a range of measures (like the five war games involving - guess what - hijacked airliners on the same routes, and guess what these war games weren't called off when the real thing went down). If there was switching of the planes going on, then obviously it's absolutely necessary because then it's official record that the planes haven't gone where they were meant to.

Why the personal insults?

 

[editor]

Oops, looks like I posted on my lurking name (Yogi Bear) by mistake. You see I haven't posted on here for a while because of the kind of personal abuse that gets bandied about on one of the few subjects that has any importance in the world we live.

Priceless wriggle.

And utter bullshit, of course.

 

[editor]

but how would he do that if you were just lurking?
and is there not an option to remain invisible?

He's posting up this bollocks because he's been caught out with another log in, and now he's trying to blame me for his FAQ-breaking activities.

It's pathetic.

 

[squeegee]

Some of the people questioning the 'official narrative ' are mentally unbalanced though aren't they?

ANYONE who questions the official story has their sanity questioned.

 

[tarannau]

Thus 911 happened more or less as the media and Western governments say. Anyone attempting to question this, is somehow mentally unbalanced and a threat to the natural order of things.

Something like that...

That isn't the case at all. It's more that many people are genuinely interested in what actually happened that day - and they don't particularly want to be represented by a bunch of 'truth seekers' incapable of even the most basic standards of accurate research and honest reporting.

It's fine to look for inconsistencies in the 'official' reports. But it's a different matter to triumphantly present alternative ideas that are riddled with holes and ludicrous inaccuracies. You'll have to excuse the world-weary dismissal of the same old faces piping up with more scattergun pet theories - folks can be ruthlessly cynical about the characters on both sides of the fence. Not believing in the vast majority of conspiracy yarns doesn't mean you swallow the whole of the govt line without question.

 

[editor]

The Washington Post didn't agree with this assessment of the manner in which the Pentagon was struck on September 12, 2001, and neither do I now.

Did you see the film last night, or were you put off by the fact you'd be hearing direct eye witness testimony, and not filtered through some book-flogging fruitloop site?

I recall you insisting that the phone calls from Flight 93 had been faked. Do you still believe that?

 

[butchersapron]

ANYONE who questions the official story has their sanity questioned.

Do you accept my claim though that:

Some of the people questioning the 'official narrative ' are mentally unbalanced though aren't they?

 

[editor]

ANYONE who questions the official story has their sanity questioned.

I'm beginning to question the sanity of someone who, when caught out posting under a second log in, doesn't take the obvious step of apologising for their FAQ-breaking activities, but instead concocts a wildly improbable and nonsensical yarn that somehow shifts the blame to me as part of a mod conspiracy against them.

 

[squeegee]

He's posting up this bollocks because he's been caught out with another log in, and now he's trying to blame me for his FAQ-breaking activities.

It's pathetic.

Cos you've never been abusive to me right? And what do you think it feels like when you are continually harrassed as soon as you log in and post? FAQ-breaking? Didn't know that. But if I'd been posting as Yogi Bear you would have a point. I did so only mistakenly. Yes, obviously I had to own up, but even if I'd started posting as Yogi (cos i never really liked squeegee) i would have said who I was.

Who else would mix conspiracies about 911 with spiritual discourse challenging "accepted paradigms of thought"?

Bottom line is I got caught out. So you gonna load up them cartridges and shoot?

"Ah got me one, ah got me a conspiraloon. Gee, look at 'eem squirm. No good critter, ah ought to shoot 'eem right now"

 

[squeegee]

What is improbable about me not wanting squeegee to be up there everytime I log in? How else could I not have the name up and still read the posts?

 

[butchersapron]

What is improbable about me not wanting squeegee to be up there everytime I log in? How else could I not have the name up and still read the posts?

edit your profile to hidden and don't post, just read.

 

[squeegee]

Do you accept my claim though that:

Some of the people questioning the 'official narrative ' are mentally unbalanced though aren't they?

Some people who cross roads are mentally unbalanced. Doesn't mean that road crossing suggests mental problems.

I know what you're getting at, and there's no doubt that people suffering from paranoid schizophrenia do concoct wild stories about governments coming to get them.

But since we do not understand the nature of the mind, or consciousness very well, since modern hard science refuses to approach the subject of cosnsciousness, I don't see how the fact that in extreme cases of conpiraloon activity there is the possibility of schizophrenia shoulod mean we cannot question the official line.

You could say that to accept everything that is offered as truth would be a form of insanity.

 

[butchersapron]

Some people who cross roads are mentally unbalanced. Doesn't mean that road crossing suggests mental problems.

I know what you're getting at, and there's no doubt that people suffering from paranoid schizophrenia do concoct wild stories about governments coming to get them.

But since we do not understand the nature of the mind, or consciousness very well, since modern hard science refuses to approach the subject of cosnsciousness, I don't see how the fact that in extreme cases of conpiraloon activity there is the possibility of schizophrenia shoulod mean we cannot question the official line.

You could say that to accept everything that is offered as truth would be a form of insanity.

Nor though, should it lead to an outright a priori dismissal of the suggestion that those people are, in fact, mentally unbalanced - and esp not a rejection on the grounds that they do believe in a conspiracy so cannot be ill.

 

[WouldBe]

In which case military ground radar would have still "seen" the plane and vectored the fighters in.

Ground radar is normally only positioned in strategic positions usually at airports. Under normal circumstances if you fly low enough you cannot be detected by radar and several posts have been made on previous threads where the aircraft dissapeared from radar.

 

[editor]

Cos you've never been abusive to me right? And what do you think it feels like when you are continually harrassed as soon as you log in and post?

Exactly how would the mods collectively harass you when you were just browsing other forums please?

And why on earth would we abuse you on other forums just because of your 9/11 beliefs?

Could you furnish me with some recent examples please, because it looks like you're beginning to invent conspiracies in the most ridiculous places with - surprise surprise - not a shred of evidence to support them!

 

[squeegee]

Nor though, should it lead to an outright a priori dismissal of the suggestion that those people are, in fact, mentally unbalanced - and esp not a rejection on the grounds that they do believe in a conspiracy so cannot be ill.

A person who is mentally unbalanced is mentally unbalanced. There are tests to show that. But you mention THOSE people and you then imply that the very questioning of the official line is somehow evidence of mental instability. Am I right?

And that is simply the way "existing paradigms of thought" are maintained. Anyone who challenges the official line has their mental state questioned.

 

[butchersapron]

A person who is mentally unbalanced is mentally unbalanced. There are tests to show that. But you mention THOSE people and you then imply that the very questioning of the official line is somehow evidence of mental instability. Am I right?

And that is simply the way "existing paradigms of thought" are maintained. Anyone who challenges the official line has their mental state questioned.

No, you're wrong. Offensively wrong. The implication that all people who question the official narrative is youurs and yours alone. I'm merely trying to get you to admit that some people who do question the official narrative are mentally unbalanced. Why you're so reluctant to agree to such a basic piece of common sense i do not know.

 

[squeegee]

Exactly how would the mods collectively harass you when you were just browsing other forums please?

And why on earth would we abuse you on other forums just because of your 9/11 beliefs?

Could you furnish me with some recent examples please, because it looks like you're beginning to invent conspiracies in the most ridiculous places with - surprise surprise - not a shred of evidence to support them!

The last run in with you I PMed you to ask for an apology for you saying that I had insulted a major religion, when I had done no such thing. Rather than apologise, you decided to attack me, on a PM, for being arrogant. Arrogant??? You made a false accusation, a serious one, and you didn't even have the dignity to apologise.

I realise that my style of writing comes accross to you as arrogant, but truth is I don't like confrontation.

The lurking and the 12 bore etc was a joke, as you well know. The truth is I didn't want to give you the satisfaction of you seeing me still here even though what you said in that PM was unbelievably insulting, and coming from you someone who has also attacked me for my spiritual beliefs against your secular, scientific empirical-based beliefs, this was even more annoying.

So I should have done what others here do and just carried on posting etc. The truth is, though I hate to say it, there is no other forum which has the depth of discussion and knowledge that this one has. And it's the best managed and seems to be the most popular.

If I'd known how to hide my log in I would have. But not being too computer-savvy, I wasn't aware. But it seems you want to turn this into something else. Could it be that any second now this thread will be derailed for being off topic.

Well after what I've written now it no doubt will be. So just to get it back on track (as if that would make any difference)

What makes me suspicious about the official 911 story? Everything mentioned on the poll

 

[WouldBe]

Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious."

You have brought this up before take a look at this link

It's the Control and Display Unit for a BAE IFF transponder note the large knob at the upper right corner with a clearly marked OFF position

This will be located with the other transmitters in the center console between the pilot and co-pilot.

Now try telling us it isnt clear how to turn the IFF off.

 

[Jazzz]

No, you're wrong. Offensively wrong. The implication that all people who question the official narrative is youurs and yours alone. I'm merely trying to get you to admit that some people who do question the official narrative are mentally unbalanced. Why you're so reluctant to agree to such a basic piece of common sense i do not know.

So you surely have no problem admitting likewise that some people who accept the official narrative are mentally unbalanced. Like squeegee I don't really see the point of this line butchersapron, unless you are indulging in a particularly crass piece of loaded questioning.

 

[butchersapron]

The lurking and the 12 bore etc was a joke, as you well know. The truth is I didn't want to give you the satisfaction of you seeing me still here even though what you said in that PM was unbelievable insulting, and coming from you someone who has also attacked me for my spiritual beliefs against your secular, scientific empirical-based beliefs, this was even more annoying.

Oh god, you're that astrology merchant aren't you?

 

[squeegee]

Oh god, you're that astrology merchant aren't you?

The one and only

 

[butchersapron]

So you surely have no problem admitting likewise that some people who accept the official narrative are mentally unbalanced. Like squeegee I don't really see the point of this line butchersapron, unless you are indulging in a particularly crass piece of loaded questioning.

I certainly have no problem admitting that.

edit: But what's the loaded question that you edited in and where's it leading?

 

[squeegee]

And just how many people would post on Urban 75 the astrology stuff that I post, metaphor blah blah, and try and hide who I am? Yeah that would work wouldn't it?

Anyway, anyone care to comment on the two websites I linked to? The 911 questions and American Free Press with an eyewitness account of another plane flying close to flight 93?

Just to keep this on topic like

 

[butchersapron]

And just how many people would post on Urban 75 the astrology stuff that I post, metaphor blah blah, and try and hide who I am? Yeah that would work wouldn't it?

Eh? I thought you were too intimidated to post so got another name? How does that fit with the above then?

 

[WouldBe]

Anyway, anyone care to comment on the two websites I linked to? The 911 questions and American Free Press with an eyewitness account of another plane flying close to flight 93?

Just to keep this on topic like

I already have. An A10 cannot fly fast enough to produce a sonic bang. Do try to keep up.

 

[editor]

I realise that my style of writing comes accross to you as arrogant, but truth is I don't like confrontation.

So you don't feel the need to apologise for posting up bullshit that the threat of 'harassment' from me across the boards was soooooo great you simply had to set up a FAQ-breaking second identity - even though you can't point me to a single example where I've harassed you simply for your 9/11 beliefs?

 

[editor]

Now try telling us it isnt clear how to turn the IFF off.

Oh, well that is a bit complicated, isn't it?



There goes another crap conspiratheory!

 

[editor]

Anyway, anyone care to comment on the two websites I linked to? The 911 questions and American Free Press with an eyewitness account of another plane flying close to flight 93?

And all the other eye witness evidence and the passengers accounts? Are you going to ignore all that then?

 

[squeegee]

edit your profile to hidden and don't post, just read.

My post IS edited to hidden, now I've checked, and squeegee still comes up as the first name with an asterisk under users. What does that mean?

Anyway, anyone get a chance to see those links. What about that eyewitness testimony. Does that count as anecdotal evidence?