| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| IronSnot wrote: | | Jay Ref wrote: | | Now I used to work at the Pentagon in room 5A910 which is the big combined services communications control area on the 5th floor A ring. Since you KNOW that the Pentagon has hi-res cameras scouring every square inch perhaps you could offer us some proof of their existence? In the meantime and in the absence of such proof it would be wise to consult someone whos actually worked in the place...me. |
When? Early 80s?
Dontcha fink it might have changed a little? |
So, I at least WAS ACTUALLY THERE! I also know people who are STILL THERE! I also have to drive past the place every single morning to get to work! Sure, I could be wrong....so prove me wrong. I'll be the first one to accept the evidence of my wrongness...so produce it.
OTOH you have what? People who HAVE NEVER BEEN NEAR THE PLACE, YET ARE SURE THAT THERE MUST BE HI RES CAMS COVERING EVERY INCH OF THE PLACE!!! I think my very limited and admittedly old direct experience of the place trumps your "feelings" about what must be there based on...what?.... your viewing of literally hundreds of hours of James Bond and Chuck Norris flicks? C'mon!
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Are you sure you were there Jay Ref?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So true...and I saw them with my very own peepers. But only AFTER the attaks...not before. A very obvious case of closing the barn door after the horsies have fled....
-z
BTW: Those mobile missile Humvees are no longer apparent these days.
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| IronSnot wrote: | Are you sure you were there Jay Ref?
|
I carved my initials on the wall in the KG-13 room. Go check. (well IF you have a Top Secret SCI clearance that is...)
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Must be a bit of a comedown posting on a 911 conspiracy site.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gravy
Minor Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:48 pm Post subject: Re: broken link |
|
|
I had made extensive corrections to that Wikipedia article, but someone dishonest has removed them. For example, the NRO exercise had nothing to do with the military. And Vigilant Warrior? It wasn't on at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gravy
Minor Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Uma wrote: | Just wanted to see how many "he said-she said-I said-you said" posts can be joined up.
Mesmerising.  |
 As long as blackcat refuses to do his/her homework, Gravy will be there to point it out! It's my sworn duty as a charter member of the NWO/CIA/PETA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gravy
Minor Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| xxThe_Dice_manxx wrote: | Greetings
Are you people still here? If you still haven't found any evidence you're not likely too so why do you stay here wasting our time?
Living in Northern Ireland I've seen enough of government orchestrated terrorism to recognise it for myself.So your not going to convince me of anything to the contrary and I doubt you will with anyone else who wants the truth.
So kindly be on your way and stop wasting our time please. |
Reading about the facts of 9/11 is a waste of your time? I'm sorry you feel that way. Please tell us how your experience in Northern Ireland has given you the ability to determine that al Qaeda did not attack the U.S. on 9/11. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gravy
Minor Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin wrote: | | Gravy, please enlighten us as to what air defences the Pentagon actually has to shoot down hostile aircraft - you obviously know so much about it. |
Justin, you said the Pentagon had an automatic missile defense system. That's your claim to prove. I will give you a hint for your research: think about the Pentagon's location.
| Quote: | | And are you telling me they do not have high resolution security cameras to pick up minute detail of possible threats to the Pentagon and its activites there? I used to be involved in the guarding of nuclear power stations and other high risk Key Points in the UK during internal security/counter insurgency exercises - I KNOW, repeat KNOW what sort of cameras and high tech equipment can be used to guard very important installations - and that was nearly twenty years ago. So come on, tell us how the Pentagon is protected. |
Poster Jay Ref, who worked at the Pentagon, has already weighed in on that subject. Here's a post on another forum from a Pentagon employee who was there on 9/11.
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=746514&postcount=173 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: |
On the side of the critics the request is clear. Please post nicely and respectfully in the critics corner and not elsewhere.
Where content from current or previous threads is relevent to an ongoing debate feel free to link to it or cut and paste the relevent information |
Here:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewforum.php?f=24 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gravy
Minor Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Justin"]So come on chaps - answer this please:
That's just sad. Did you see the little circle they drew at the fuselage impact point? Did you see the long area of destroyed concrete and coulmns to the right? The general should have talked to some people who were there if he had questions about what hit the Pentagon, rather than rely on a foggy photo.
So should you , Justin. If you have doubts, who have you attempted to contact who was at the scene?
Did you at least review the Pentagon information I posted on this thread yesterday? What's your opinion of it?
Have you at least read the ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report? If not, why?
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin
9/11 Truth Organiser
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 500
Location: Cumbria / Yorkshire Dales
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for all your last posts, Jay Ref in particular.
| Quote: |
"There are no sooper sekrit hi-res security cams covering every inch of the Pentagon!" There are no batteries of missiles protecting the place!! The Pentagon is NOT under restricted airspace!! |
Now you don't expect me, who has signed the Official Secrets Act, to tell you in detail how we went about guarding nuclear power stations more than 20 years ago along with other vital military and civil VPs and KPs. In those days we had the IRA and possible Special Forces from the then USSR to worry about. Equally I don't expect you, having probably signed the American equivalent to the Official Secrets Act to tell us how the Pentagon was protected all those years ago. What I can tell you, from former military contacts and a university professor I know who is a regular visitor, is that Washington is covered, and has been for some years, by a sophisticated air defence system.
If you are telling me to believe the contrary, and that the Pentagon is not under restricted airspace, then this shows a level of such supreme incompetence that America should resign as the world's only superpower immediately. I'm sorry chaps, and it is good that we have at least exposed one of you, I just don't believe you - it's as simple as that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin
9/11 Truth Organiser
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 500
Location: Cumbria / Yorkshire Dales
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PS
| Quote: | | I carved my initials on the wall in the KG-13 room. Go check. (well IF you have a Top Secret SCI clearance that is...) |
You had a very important job then - so you probably do know about the air defences of Washington. Please accept my apologies for doubting you.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xxThe_Dice_manxx
Minor Poster
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 42
Location: Northern Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Greetings
Common sense tells me Al qaeda didn't attack the US on 911.
Check the history of Northern Ireland since the early 80's not one person has been caught or charged with the bombings niether in Northern Ireland or the mainland and those who did were framed and later set free.
And if you dig deeper you will find that nearly all bombings were carried out by MI5 or 6 agents and the explosives supplied by same organisation.
But lets move to the 93 bombing of the WTC which was orchestrated by the FBI and this being the case who's to doubt they wouldnt crash planes into them on 911?
And then we have the Oklahoma bombing which was a massive cover up the FBI were told to stay away from work that day.There was more than one bomb and explosive experts have said that a bomb outside the building would never have caused that damage.
And how about Pearl Harbour and the war with Japan which was instigated by the Americans.They knew the time and place exactly of the attack yet let 3000 or so US soldiers and civilians die so they could enter WW2.
Just for the sake of disgust with these scumbags in government what about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs? for 12 months the Japanese had been trying to surrender prior to the bombing.There was absolutely no need to drop them bombs but the american government wanted to test their new toy and spread fear thru the world.
The truth is our governments are ruthless we are all explendable to them and something needs to be done otherwise there is no hope for us all.
_________________
MAD BAD AND DANGEROUS TO KNOW
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | As long as blackcat refuses to do his/her homework, Gravy will be there to point it out! It's my sworn duty as a charter member of the NWO/CIA/PETA |
I made the mistake of mentioning one evil b****** instead of another. That is not a case of not doing my homework it is a minor error which anyone interested in genuine debate would have pointed out and moved on to debating the issue which of course you ignore and instead indulge in infantile behaviour which doubtless passes for humour for someone at your level. You did not explain at any time why my information was "false" which a reasonable person, interested in the truth, would have done, nor did you explain why my second statement was "false". You are a smart arse shill and not worth the time of day. I imagine you doing a Homer Simpson "superior" laugh as you type your drivel. "He he he he . This person said Cheney when he should have said Rumsfeld. He he he...."
Go * yourself you supporter of murderous b******. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gravy
Minor Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:23 pm Post subject: Re: observations |
|
|
[quote="Pete J"] | Gravy wrote: | | Pete J wrote: | | ...but off the top of my head, ignoring controlled demolition as a collapse mechanism, |
NIST didn't ignore it. They said they found no evidence to support it.
|
| Pete J wrote: | | Gravy, as you serious ? The observable collapse data support very little else. |
According to you, or according to thousands of structural engineers? The ASCE represents over 125,000 structural engineers worldwide. In addition, I'm told by engineering students that the WTC collapses are taught as standard parts of the curriculum.
It's 2006. I'm not aware of a single structural engineer in the world who has supported your position that "the observable data support very little else." Or a single fire safety engineer, or a single controlled demolitions expert. On what do you base that assertion? Does it concern you that none of the thousands of experts in relevant fields support you? Do you have proof that you know better than they?
| Quote: | | Maybe you mean they found no 'traces' of explosives in the debris which is possible. |
Not a trace of explosives or explosive devices anywhere. Not a single ironworker or engineer reported the effects of explosives on steel – neither the very obvious cut marks nor the very obvious residue that demolitions explosives leave. Not a single trace of such effects is apparent in the thousands of Ground Zero photos I've viewed. At Fresh Kills landfill, 1.6 billion pounds of debris was sorted on conveyor belts by detectives and forensics experts. Although items as small as shirt buttons and teeth were found, not a single trace of a blasting cap, detcord, a "thermate dispenser" or anything remotely like them was found.
Nothing. Nada. Zilch. There is absolutely zero evidence to support your claim.
| Quote: | | Despite this there is general agreement that existed 'hotspots' in the debris which reached extreme temperatures not accountable for by the building fires or molten aluminium from the planes. |
Please explain who "generally agrees' with that statement! I haven't heard a single expert support it. What's your source?
| Quote: | | You've attempted to account for these in another thread in terms of 'heat' but as I pointed out in reply, 'heat' is a wholly different physical property from 'temperature'. (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=2761&start=17). Temperature is not associated with the scale of the burning but the chemistry, whereas heat ('energy') is. This is why Jones has proposed that the hotspots are the result of Thermite derivative reactions because the chemistry of such a reaction easily accounts for the extreme temeratures. |
Please show me your work or your sources that show:
1) What comprised the molten material beneath the towers and buildings 6 and 7.
2) That conditions to produce these molten materials could not be achieved either in the buildings or in the debris piles, without the use of incendiaries.
Before leaping to wild conclusions, you need to eliminate the likely and logical scenarios.
| Quote: | | NIST will have been aware of this which is why it's plausable to assume that the decision not to acknowledge that the collapse data correspond (amongst other hypothises) to a controlled demolition is political, not technical. |
Starting with an unsupported premise and positing what's plausible based on that is a recipe for being wrong.
| Gravy wrote: | | Mineta's timeline, which is supported only by his memory, is contradicted by multiple cross-referenced sources. |
| Quote: | | If you are a 9/11 commissioner and you hear a testimony like this, presumably the logical next question is 'what were the orders being referred to'. I realised Mineta may not have had the answer but they should have persued it with others. Just because his 'timeline' is contradicted doesn't mean he's lying under oath. |
Who said he was lying? Everyone makes mistakes. His testimony is there for all to read. It corresponds very well with the two false alarm alerts that happened after flight 77 hit the Pentagon. It does not correspond with the flight 77 chronology or the written logs. It was the Commission's job to sort the testimony of its 1200 witnesses and decide what was relevant and accurate. Mineta's testimony would be relevant if it were accurate, but it does not appear to be.
| Gravy wrote: |
| Quote: | | ignoring the (apparent) air defence 'stand down', |
I've looked into this issue extensively, and have found no evidence of a "stand down." |
| Quote: | | Well, this may be so and I acknowledge that you might have not found evidence of a 'stand down'. However it's normal procedure for air defence to intercept Airliners which go off course within 10-20 minutes of them doing so. |
Can you cite an example, pre-9/11, of this happening in the U.S.?
| Quote: | | Any planners of a 9/11 type scenario would have known, that under normal circumstances, there was an extremely small chance of the planes reaching their targets when they have to travel such a large distance from the hijack points. |
On the contrary, they took advantage of weaknesses in the system. They hijacked 4 planes, which is something the military did not plan for and which caused great confusion, and they did so inside the U.S., forcing the military to rely on the FAA's primary (less accurate) radar information.
| Quote: | | Despite this they still planned on such an unlikely scenario. Guess what ? - they weren't intercepted ! This is why I used the word 'apparent' in front of the phrase 'stand down' in my last post. |
The 9/11 Commission report explains this confusion well, IMO.
| Gravy wrote: | | [quote have not seen a shred of evidence to support the claim that exercises simulating hijackings took place on 9/11, and the dozens of CTs I've questioned about it haven't produced anything. |
Again, I'll have to go back and correct that Wikipedia article. Remember, especially when dealing with a controversial subject, it's best not to rely on a source that can be changed by anyone as your sole information. I'll repeat: there is no evidence of a single live-fly or simulated hijacking exercise happening on 9/11.
| Quote: | | Condi said she didn't 'know about them'. It doesn't really matter, NORAD certainly did. |
Again, provide evidence of this and all the beer in Britain is yours! 
| Gravy wrote: | | I don't know what you mean by the columns being "compressed" Certainly a small amount of compression happened, but once columns exceed their design loads, they buckle and snap. You also have to consider the internal lateral and torque forces on the columns, not just vertical forces. That's why simplified models of the tower collapses don't tell the whole story. |
| Quote: | | This is stretching things a bit don't you think ? They will 'buckle and snap' in all kinds of different directions and at different rates. The energy required to do so is huge. |
And available. Remember, if you want to destroy the columns with explosives, you also need a "huge" amount, and the effects of such explosives on the steel (on at least two pieces of steel for each cut) were not detected ON A SINGLE PIECE.
| Quote: |
There is also something called '2nd moment of area' which is why the cross section of a beam is often in the shape of an 'I'. What you're suggesting is that 47 beams 'buckled and snapped' simultaneously on each of 90 floors. |
WHAT? Who said that? Please explain. And who said the columns (not beams) had to buckle and snap at every floor? As you can see from the videos, some core columns in both towers stood to a height of hundreds of feet for a few seconds after the collapses.
| Gravy wrote: | | Frank Greening (a chemist by trade, not a structural engineer) has done some interesting work on this topic |
| Quote: | Yes he has. I've read this paper http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf and I think it is a good illustration of how the collapse can be modelled. I've no reason to doubt his calculations and he addresses exactly the issue I expressed above, however look at the conclusions he draws:
1] the time for (Tc) - based purely on kinematics (effectively independent floors suspended in thin air - no core columns although their mass is accounted for in the mass of the floor in the model) - are 12.6s and 11.5s respectively for WTC-1 and 2
2] the revised times for (Tc) after including the effects of energy required to buckle beams and pulverise conrete increases by only 0.2 and 0.1s respectively !
Even we take the purely theoretical time from case [1] above we are already at the observed collapsed time and more ! |
That depends on the observer! I haven't sat down and timed each collapse from multiple videos, nor do I feel like calculating how long it is from the time the dust clouds obscures the buildings until they probably hit the ground (figuring the height of the pile in also). This part of the story just isn't that interesting to me. When some structural engineers agree with you, or when a properly peer-reviewed paper is published that supports your claims, I'll be interested.
| Quote: | Furthermore, for the additional 'energy' factoring, Greening's analysis relies on a value of 'E1' derived by Bazant and Zhou in this paper http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf written 1 day after the collapse and presented 2 days after it. Greening points out that even though the value for 'E' may be out by a factor of 2, the model is relatively insensitive to errors in 'E1' up until about 'E1=2.2' (see his graph in 'Figure 2'). This is where it all goes wrong with these analyses in my opinion.
- try this experiment (in our heads at least ). Hold a matchstick vertically against a carpeted floor with your index finger on the end. Push down on it as hard as possible while keeping it vertical until it breaks. Now pick it up, hold an end in each end and 'snap' it. The different in 'energy' required in each case is several orders of magnitude more than 2, it's more like 10-50 (guessing). This means that any inaccurate assumptions in Bazant and Zhou's paper have the potential to send Greening's value for 'Impact Energy' off the scale in terms of his 'Figure 2' graph. 24 hours is not a lot of time to have you paper 'peer reviewed' and since then this paper has become written into the 'woodwork' of history just like all the other accounts that the media were quickly fed at the time. |
This is why I'm not convinced that such simplified models are useful. Your matchstick analogy does not account for lateral and torque forces, which were present in the towers. Remember, the tops of both towers tilted and twisted as they started to fall.
As Bazant said in his paper, "Once accurate computer calculations are carried out, various details of the failure mechanism will doubtless be found to differ from the present simplifying hypotheses." In the paper's title it says, "–Simple Analysis."
I don't understand your suggestion the B&Z's paper somehow "poisoned the well." They updated the paper on 9/22 and added appendices on 9/28. NIST's investigation lasted several years. Their reference to B&Z's paper doesn't tell me that it was a holy grail to them.
If you haven't seen it, Bazant's lecture (June, 2006) "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse – Learning from the World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" is an interesting read, although much of the math is over my head.
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/Progressiv eCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf
| Quote: | | A more plausable scenario (at least as far as removing the resistance from the beams is concerned) is that thermate explosives cut each of the beams "cleanly" at a 45 degree angle, allowing them to slide off each other and facilitate a 'clean' collapse. (See also here - Jones discussion on collapse times in video [jump to 18 mins] http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2006/07/9-11-hero-physics-profess or-steven.html). |
Plausible??? You're talking about 16,215 thermate-cut-at-45-degrees pieces of massive core columns! Where's a single piece of evidence of those 16,215 enormous column sections? Where's a single shred of evidence of thermate use?
What's your plausible scenario of how those 8,108 chaarges were installed and controlled? What's your plausible explanation of how thermate can "instantly" cut vertical steel up to 5 inches thick?
Get a hold of yourself, Pete! This is not good.
But I'm glad you brought up the Jones video. I encourage everyone to watch it, because it's a sterling example of how not to be a scientist. Look at his comments on WTC 7: he says the collapse time is 6.6 seconds! Then he states that since the 9/11 Commission report didn't include WTC 7's collapse, "I almost rest my case." He talks about how suspicious that is. What a blithering idiot. The commission report wasn't concerned with collateral damage. They didn't discuss all of 45 damaged or collapsed buildings. Why would they? Their mandate was to find out why the attacks occurred and to make recommendations to help prevent future attacks.
| Quote: | | All these analyses, every single one of them, need to be re-done taking into account the possibility that explosives were used to take down the buildings for them to have some credibility. |
From "Ten Characteristics of Conspiracy Theorists"
| Quote: | | 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. http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html |
| Gravy wrote: | | Regarding the FBI's handling of the aircraft crash investigations, that's the law in the U.S. when the crash is suspected to be due to criminal activity. The NTSB was involved in the investigations, but the FBI was the lead. |
| Quote: | | Yes, that's a handy law, isn't it. |
No, it's just the law, and it exists for good reason. Only a conspiracy theorist would consider it "handy."
| Quote: | | Whenever there's a matter of the greatest public interest the case gets taken out of the public's hands . I'm reminded of how this arrangement worked to effectively in the 70's when the NTSB were trying to make the Federal Authorities aware that the cargo doors on DC-10s had a faulty latch mechanism that could cause them to blow off in mid air. DC-10's were dropping out of the sky a couple of times a year since 1973 but it took 6-7 years before they had this problem acknkwledged and did something about it, even though they knew exactly what the problem was. I'm sure at that time folks in the public were saying 'it can't be true - somebody on the inside would have said something by now' when confronted by this apparent 'conspiracy theory'. |
"Taken out of the public's hands?" What in the world do you mean? The NTSB worked with the FBI on each crash. I don't want "the public" investigating crimes, I want expert investigators doing it. What does your DC-10 cargo door scenario have to do with anything? You mentioned that it was ignored due to a "convenient arrangement." A convenient arrangement between whom? I'm not aware of the FBI being involved in those accident investigations.
One of the NTSB's jobs is to determine the cause of air crashes. In this case, we already knew the cause of three of the crashes: hijackers flew the planes into buildings. In the third case, flight 93, the NTSB's recovery of flight- and voice data from the "black boxes" helped to determine the cause of the crash, while the FBI tested the debris for explosives residue and found none. The conclusion based on the evidence gathered by these agencies: hijackers flew flight 93 into the ground.
edited to fix tags
Last edited by Gravy on Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gravy,
You are in the wrong forum.
| ian neal wrote: |
On the side of the critics the request is clear. Please post nicely and respectfully in the critics corner and not elsewhere.
Where content from current or previous threads is relevent to an ongoing debate feel free to link to it or cut and paste the relevent information |
Please respect the wishes of the mods and the majority of people here. Copy the relevant bits from this thread or others to here:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewforum.php?f=24
and carry on.
Debate in there as much as you like.
Cheers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gravy
Minor Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scar wrote: | Gravy,
You are in the wrong forum.
| ian neal wrote: |
On the side of the critics the request is clear. Please post nicely and respectfully in the critics corner and not elsewhere.
Where content from current or previous threads is relevent to an ongoing debate feel free to link to it or cut and paste the relevent information |
Please respect the wishes of the mods and the majority of people here. Copy the relevant bits from this thread or others to here:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewforum.php?f=24
and carry on.
Debate in there as much as you like.
Cheers. |
Critics Corner? What kind hogwash is that? Open discussion of 9/11 issues is now relegated to a "corner?"
Way to go, "truthseekers." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gravy wrote: | | Critics Corner? What kind hogwash is that? Open discussion of 9/11 issues is now relegated to a "corner?" |
Or "Free Speech Zone", if you will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gravy wrote: |
Critics Corner? What kind hogwash is that? Open discussion of 9/11 issues is now relegated to a "corner?"
Way to go, "truthseekers." |
Others are respecting it, why cant you?
It was created especially for open discussion with people here.
One would think you would relish that... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gravy wrote: | | scar wrote: | Gravy,
You are in the wrong forum.
| ian neal wrote: |
On the side of the critics the request is clear. Please post nicely and respectfully in the critics corner and not elsewhere.
Where content from current or previous threads is relevent to an ongoing debate feel free to link to it or cut and paste the relevent information |
Please respect the wishes of the mods and the majority of people here. Copy the relevant bits from this thread or others to here:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewforum.php?f=24
and carry on.
Debate in there as much as you like.
Cheers. |
Critics Corner? What kind hogwash is that? Open discussion of 9/11 issues is now relegated to a "corner?"
Way to go, "truthseekers." |
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | Gravy wrote: | | Critics Corner? What kind hogwash is that? Open discussion of 9/11 issues is now relegated to a "corner?" |
Or "Free Speech Zone", if you will. |
Hi Gravy and Chipmunk.
Gravy, you may consider it hogwash, but I have explained the collective decision of the moderators and why we consider a critics corner an appropriate response to your arrival here.
As I have said in earlier posts, I believe there is value in engaging with you and other critical voices. I am certainly not so arrogant as to believe I know everything about 9/11 and its wider implications and I'm open to having my beliefs challenged.
However there are good reasons why a separation is (in the opinion of the moderators) required. This policy can be reconsidered in the light of experience but right now that is how it is. Failure to respect this will lead to either temporary or permanent suspension of posting rights.
This policy is also open to discussion by all as witnessed by this thread
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=13934#13934
If you wish to consider the 'critics corner' to be a 'free speech zone' that's fine by me as long as the speech is within the forum's principles as explained here
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=1685
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=99
Thanks and have a nice day y'all |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Most of these guys really don't like it, do they. They don't like it because they are working off a Pentagon budget and their sole purpose is to mess up this site and thwart our purpose ENTIRELY.
The arguments and disagreements we engage in are not, in themselves, the point. These arguments are, like Zionism itself, merely a tool to use in order to achieve a defined and clear objective.
On this site they are soldiers fighting a small battle that is part of a much larger and extremely serious war. The war is between lies and truth, good and evil. The forces our 'visitors' are representing are forces that are winning the war so far. The reason they are so dominant is because the forces that employ them control the entire mainstream media.
In spite of this, however, these forces are alarmed because many silly little sites like ours are beginning to have a real effect within our communities and ascross the USA and UK as a whole. These forces know that, if they do not suppress the information we are broadcasting, eventually they will be in very serious trouble and all their money and all their lies will count for nought.
Personally, I can't imagine that we will win the information battle to the extent that we prevent the diabolical imposition of a global war upon the decent peoples of the world.
However, enough of the awareness that we are helping to create will survive to have a critical effect on the end of the planned horrors. A society that has lost its comforts and that is in unprecedented agony from its experience will not swallow media lies. it will thirst for the truth, it will discover that truth and will identify the creatures that have brought it so low and proceed to tear the evil b******s limb from limb.
Then there will be a new beginning.
Pray though that a miracle takes this world more swiftly to a full realisation of the wickedness of the powers that rule our earth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kbo234 wrote: | | Most of these guys really don't like it, do they. They don't like it because they are working off a Pentagon budget and their sole purpose is to mess up this site and thwart our purpose ENTIRELY. |
Now, now. You know we can't prove that 'most of these guys' are in the pay of the pentagon, so let's not go there.
This is as much about demonstrating to a wider public that as a movement 'we' are open to having 'our' thinking challenged as it is about changing the beliefs of our critics. If we continuously label 'them' shills and stooges (though some may be), we will be resorting to the same tactics as those amongst our critics who label (all of) us as tin foil hat wearing conspiraloon fundamentalists or anti-semitic or whatever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kbo234 wrote: | | it will discover that truth and will identify the creatures that have brought it so low and proceed to tear the evil b******s limb from limb. |
Rather than tearing the 'evil b****** limb from limb' I suggest sticking them on diego garcia and let them squabble amongst themselves, whilst the rest of the world learns to live in peace and harmony. We already know the answers if only we weren't so busy playing or 'fighting' their game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | This is as much about demonstrating to a wider public that as a movement 'we' are open to having 'our' thinking challenged as it is about changing the beliefs of our critics. If we continuously label 'them' shills and stooges (though some may be), we will be resorting to the same tactics as those amongst our critics who label (all of) us as tin foil hat wearing conspiraloon fundamentalists or anti-semitic or whatever. |
We should be doing no such thing. The mainstream media is full of lies and small sites such as this should not tolerate the "discussion" that these liars bring here. Some open minded people may visit a site like this and instead of being given an alternative to the lies that are pushed daily they will read the drivel the shills post and may leave non the wiser. We should not tolerate them and their pretence of debate. They are liars who know the truth but their agenda is to support the mass murderers and muddy the waters as much as possible. This is no time to be "fair" to these creatures - they do not deserve it. They should not be tolerated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's over the top.
Myself, I believe that if there are disinformation agents here they're more likely to be 911 truthers.
These guys arn't necessarily being fair with all the information they're coming across, as although they don't think it they are biased, but then in most cases neither are we for the same reasons. To label these guys shills and disinformation agents when they're probably just Joe Blow from down the road is creating easily as much discord as anything else is.
I think there are a few drama queens around.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | | If we continuously label 'them' shills and stooges (though some may be), we will be resorting to the same tactics as those amongst our critics who label (all of) us as tin foil hat wearing conspiraloon fundamentalists or anti-semitic or whatever. |
You forgot 'Nazis'.
Maybe you are right Ian, I don't know. You do keep this place semi-civilised anyway. Personally I am quite unused to attacking anyone verbally but I feel like making an exception for the 9/11 criminals and their little helpers.
The thing is that 'they' do not hesitate to viciously attack anyone who speaks out against them and this tactic has been and remains a very effective one. I have only ever been called a Nazi twice. The first time was when I phoned the Israeli Embassy in London in 1982 (Sabra and Chatila) to register my shock and dismay that Israel of all people (how naive I was then) could be responsible for such an outrage. The guy on the other end of the line began literally screaming at me..."We know you, we know you. You are one who would be shoving us into the gas ovens first chance you get"....and on like that. I was dumbstruck at the time. This was something I hadn't come across before.
The second time I was called a Nazi was here....by our venerable guests.
American society, as John Kaminsky states in his latest article, has been completely cowed by these tactics. I am not sure about what is right for this site. Yes, we want to retain decency and not to give people an excuse to label us as a bunch consisting of every kind of nutter and extemist.
However, I agree with Blackcat also...can we really afford to waste time with these people (I am confident that they are either paid, or committed Zionists acting in service of their self-serving Talmudic anti-morality).
While we waste energy playing the english gentleperson, the vicious Zionist propaganda campaign goes on. We badly need to 'get to' ordinary decent Jews who have been bathed in and brainwashed by Zionist rubbish since the day they were born. Giving Zionists a taste of their own medicine might not be a bad idea. I want to ask you a question. How can we shock the average Jewish person out of his/her complacent and ill-informed righteousness?
I know saying this kind of thing curdles people's blood but when stuck in a dilemma I normally go back to the teaching of Christ and see what he had to say on the matter. The verse that comes to mind is simple."Do not be angry" so, on reflection, you are surely right.....but it calls on all our reserves of 'faith' to believe that treating these people respectfully while they abuse all and sundry is the right thing to do.....
Hang on....didn't Christ also drive the moneychangers from the Temple and venemously trash the Talmudist Pharissees.."Ye brood of vipers!!!"
Maybe Jesus isn't as much help as I though he'd be. this takes a bit of working out.
I do concede that the interests of our 9/11 group and this site are probably best served by operating within your suggested guidelines. We are vulnerable to abuse and our critics will use every chance they get to trash us. The difficulty for you Ian is that for many people (like myself), when their eyes are opened, it is very difficult indeed to restrain the rage felt against the people responsible for our woes. You have your work cut out, because this anger will inevitably and continually erupt on the pages of this site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm quite happy to make it three. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I am referring to the obvious disinformation agents who come here, not people genuinely interested in debate. Obviously we want our movement to expand and get the truth out and doubters who come here and are reasonable in their behaviour should be encouraged. If they remain unconvinced then fair enough. But when people come here to denigrate this movement and make it difficult for genuine enquirers to see an alternative view because of the blatant lies they spread I say it is beyond the pale. They should be banned. I am not usually described as a drama queen by the way. This is the most important issue of my (long) life and it is worth getting passionate about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| As I have said this may all end in an inevitable and perpetual bun fight and hence we may have to reconsider how this is managed, but let's give it time to see how this plays out. It's still early days for the critics corner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
