9/11 Debunked

[Flex]

You can't prove it wasn't, I can't prove it was. Someone can ask questions, another can try and answer them, sometimes the answers don't add up. If you have a deep look into it, there are WAY too many things that don't add up. It's an impossible debate for you to "win", in general, because you can't answer the physical chemistry, physics, and most of all, the odd behavior.

You're right, I can't prove it wasn't an inside job, but you know that's not what I meant.

Rather, I can prove each flight hit their "supposed" destinations. Just how I basically proved Flight 77 hit the pentagon.

I can prove Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks, I can prove the terrorists were on board.

I can't however, prove that everyone inside the government wasn't aware we'd be attacked. I even said to you a few weeks ago I believe in the possibility of someone inside the government giving a "greenlight." But this wouldn't be something George Bush would be behind, and certainly not John Kerry. That is why it's basically pointless for 9/11 truth to question someone as clueless on the topic as John Kerry.

 

[Ironslave]

You're right, I can't prove it wasn't an inside job, but you know that's not what I meant.

Rather, I can prove each flight hit their "supposed" destinations. Just how I basically proved Flight 77 hit the pentagon.

I can prove Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks, I can prove the terrorists were on board.

I can't however, prove that everyone inside the government wasn't aware we'd be attacked. I even said to you a few weeks ago I believe in the possibility of someone inside the government giving a "greenlight." But this wouldn't be something George Bush would be behind, and certainly not John Kerry. That is why it's basically pointless for 9/11 truth to question someone as clueless on the topic as John Kerry.

Fair enough. I'll agree to this.

Why then though did the government release all the above videos, and say they were all bin laden? this is a red flag in my book. You have a great eye for detail, as evident from your competition assessment. You can't believe these are the same man.

Here's a guy who was trapped in a cave, in chronic renal failure in all likelihood, which if untreated would result in quick death. It's shit like this which makes everything else a lot easier to question.

 

[Braaq]

I am not an expert by any means. But didn't some tapes get released in different orders and we are not able to actually tell when they were made? I have heard this several times, so who is to know that the 2007 video was not made before? Again, I could be completely wrong but I have heard this many times.

 

[Ironslave]

I am not an expert by any means. But didn't some tapes get released in different orders and we are not able to actually tell when they were made? I have heard this several times, so who is to know that the 2007 video was not made before? Again, I could be completely wrong but I have heard this many times.

Not sure, it's possible.... but even if not, do those really look like the same guy in all tapes?

Didn't they conveniently find the first "confession" tape when they raided some house?

 

[Braaq]

Not sure, it's possible.... but even if not, do those really look like the same guy in all tapes?

Didn't they conveniently find the first "confession" tape when they raided some house?

I agree that one pic looks like a black man, but the beard color change is what I was referring to.

 

[Ironslave]

I agree that one pic looks like a black man, but the beard color change is what I was referring to.

It was supposed to be for the 6th anniversary of 9/11, and apparently he mentioned it in the past tense and such. Hard to say, because of course, the full tape has not been released. (why?)

Apparently Bin Laden turned into a metrosexual and dyed his beard in between his dialysis sessions while living in a cave being hunted by the most powerful military in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Osama_bin_Laden_video

 

[Flex]

I already started jotting down information about your Bin Laden questions, but it's saved on another computer. So I promise once I use that computer again I'll get it finished up.

What I doubt you realize, is that it took me days to post up those 5 or 6 posts bunched together. It looks like it's all copied and pasted since it's so organized and neat, but I spent a fuckload of time writing all that up and also researching.

Hence, I feel like I have a right to be angry when someone claims I'm just a copy & paster. For stuff like witness comments, ofcourse they are simply copy and pasted. I'm not the one making the statements afterall, that was the easiest part of all the posts I created. The rest of it is from numerous amounts of sites that I gathered information from.

As for the debate, let's keep it friendly and clean from now on. No cheap shots.

 

[Braaq]

Ahh the love in here, much better than the Duality vs Braaq thread

 

[Flex]

It was supposed to be for the 6th anniversary of 9/11, and apparently he mentioned it in the past tense and such. Hard to say, because of course, the full tape has not been released. (why?)

Apparently Bin Laden turned into a metrosexual and dyed his beard in between his dialysis sessions while living in a cave being hunted by the most powerful military in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Osama_bin_Laden_video

Please stop using the "living in a cave" comment about Bin Laden, I find it a bit racist. It's true he was hiding in a cave for a couple months in Afghanistan back in '01, but I'm sure he's living well these days in Pakistan.

If you knew what I knew you'd know it's a bit pointless arguing that the 2007 video release isn't Bin Laden. I've read the entire transcript of the video and he fails to make any such comment connecting him to the 9/11 attacks. The closest thing he said was the "hijackers were successful on September 11th because of Allah's blessing...etc etc."

Most of the video he spoke of Rumsfeld being a murderer, even back in Vietnam. He spent alot of time criticizing neocons such as Dick Cheney and Richard Pearle (sp?). He also mentioned that the American people will elect a Democrat this year, even though both party's are exactly the same. Then he actually recommended people change religions to Islam and listed his reasons. Most of all, he criticized the Iraq war and how it is a complete failure. In all honesty James, he sounded alot like us on this message board, critizing neocons, the two main parties, and the Iraq war.

Now, I know you're a smart man James. What would be the point of our government staging Bin Laden for the statements he said? If it wasn't Bin Laden, then the only way I see it staged is if it were done by Al-Qaeda. I see no reason to believe Osama is dead, especially when the Taliban admitted he's alive and well. Sure he's sick, but that's just one of the reasons he looks different in each video. You can tell he's aging very quickly.

The most ironic part about your picture is the 2004 picture you use to compare as the real Osama Bin Laden. Well, in that video he confessed to being behind the 9/11 attacks, so why even discuss the 2007 video still?

I can prove the 2001 confession tape is real and by posting that comparison you're basically telling us the 2004 confession tape is real. To go along with that, there are several other tapes released from Bin Laden admitting to the 9/11 attacks in the past few years.

Again, I will finish up my evidence in the next couple days.

 

[Flex]

For now, I will just post some evidence up that the 2001 confession tape was real.

Snagging one poor quality, bad lighting video still is not evidence that Osama Bin Laden is innocent. I've seen the 2001 confession tape, and it looks just like Bin Laden. The moment your video still is taken is one of the few moments he looks different. That's exactly what I mean by 9/11 truthers being misleading.

Here's a video still from the moment you use.

Now take a look at another shot. One with him facing the camera, and with better lighting.

If you look at other pictures that are not misleading and in higher quality, you can CLEARLY see it is Osama Bin Laden.

If you take a closer look at the last picture I posted. You will also see Al-Qaeda's spokesman Suleiman Abu Ghaith sitting to Osama Bin Laden's left.

Also featured in the video is Al-Qaeda's 2nd in command Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Khaled al-Harbi, who was an associate of Osama Bin Laden until he surrendered in 2004 is also featured in the confession.

It is also a well known fact that Osama Bin Laden is tall. If you you watch when Bin Laden first enters the room, you can see he has to duck his head to enter.

Watch the video for yourself. You be the judge. If you watch it, I'm sure you'll admit the tape is real, at least to yourself.

Let's find out what an expert on Osama Bin Laden thinks about the video. Peter Bergen, who has interviewed Bin Laden in person and authored several books about him.

"You know, and simple explanations are the best ones. There will always be conspiracy theories about these kinds of things. But they're just conspiracy theories. This was obviously a kind of casual moment. I have seen tapes similar to this during the Afghan war against the Soviet Union, Bin Laden sort of sitting around kibbitzing with his friends. It has all of the hallmarks of authenticity to me."

 

[Flex]

I strongly recommend watch this documentary James. It shows the authenticity of the confession video, the hijackers planning 9/11 along side Osama Bin Laden, and confessions from both the hijackers and Bin Laden.

I have to admit, I love the Arabic music. I find it relaxing.


<a href="http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1619489">The Usual Suspects - A 9/11 Documentary</a><br/><object width="425px" height="360px" ><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"/><param name="wmode" value="transparent"/><param name="movie" value="http://mediaservices.myspace.com/services/media/embed.aspx/m=1619489,t=1,mt=video,searchID=,primarycolor=,secondarycolor="/><embed src="http://mediaservices.myspace.com/services/media/embed.aspx/m=1619489,t=1,mt=video,searchID=,primarycolor=,secondarycolor=" width="425" height="360" allowFullScreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"/></object>

 

[Ironslave]

^

Okay cool, great post. I'll look at it, I admit I hadn't looked into the confession tape more.

How about the other ones? Why did Bin Laden turn into a metrosexual and dye his beard in between dialysis treatments?

 

[Flex]

^

Okay cool, great post. I'll look at it, I admit I hadn't looked into the confession tape more.

How about the other ones? Why did Bin Laden turn into a metrosexual and dye his beard in between dialysis treatments?

Obviously no one except a few Arabs know that answer for certainty. My guess is by 2007 he was looking like death and his beard was entirely grey. Thus, he had it colored at the last minute so he would look as if he's in better health. I've noticed within the past couple years he's been releasing audio tapes far more than video, most likely because he's on the verge of death. I wouldn't be surprised if he dies within the next year or two, we'd probably receive that information a couple months after it happens.

Ask yourself this though. If someone was staging Osama Bin Laden, don't you think they would at least dye his beard the right color? Same goes with the 2001 confession, why would someone stage it with a fake fat Osama Bin Laden when everyone in the world knows he's skin and bones?

It's common sense if you ask me.

 

[Ironslave]

Obviously no one except a few Arabs know that answer for certainty. My guess is by 2007 he was looking like death and his beard was entirely grey. Thus, he had it colored at the last minute so he would look as if he's in better health. I've noticed within the past couple years he's been releasing audio tapes far more than video, most likely because he's on the verge of death. I wouldn't be surprised if he dies within the next year or two, we'd probably receive that information a couple months after it happens.

Ask yourself this though. If someone was staging Osama Bin Laden, don't you think they would at least dye his beard the right color? Same goes with the 2001 confession, why would someone stage it with a fake fat Osama Bin Laden when everyone in the world knows he's skin and bones?

It's common sense if you ask me.

Come on Flex. Again you have a good eye for detail. Look at all those pictures and tell me truthfully, that they're the same man.

 

[Flex]

Come on Flex. Again you have a good eye for detail. Look at all those pictures and tell me truthfully, that they're the same man.

lol, I'm 100% positive it's Osama Bin Laden. Truthfully.

As an exercise scientist, you're well aware that people can change over a matter of years (especially if they're dying). You can tell Osama lost alot of weight over the years, to the point where he'd be considered anorexic. His face is freakishly depleted, his shoulders are incredibly narrow, but it's still the same man.

But, as I mentioned earlier, you shouldn't even be debating this video. What statements did he make in this video that would make it worthwhile for the government to hire an Arab to portray Bin Laden, over-install OSB's voice, but then forgetting to color his beard correctly. Doh.

Not one Osama Bin Laden expert has come out and claimed it's fake, not one member of Al-Qaeda nor Taliban has claimed it's fake. The only people who claim it's fake are the kids that do five clicks on google and automatically become an expert overnight.

 

[Flex]

I've been over at the JREF forums for a couple months, where people dominate 9/11 conspiracies 24/7.

Mike Williams (creator of 9/11 myths) made this excellent post more than a year ago. This type of stuff wipes out any conspiracy theories James.


There's this bin Laden statement from 2002:

"What many leaders have said so far is that America has an indication only, and not a tangible proof. They describe those brave guys who took the battle to the heart of America and destroyed its most famous economic and military landmarks.

They did this, as we understand it, and this is something we have agitated for before, as a matter of self-defense, in defense of our brothers and sons in Palestine, and to liberate our sacred religious sites/things. If inciting people to do that is terrorism, and if killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, then let history be witness that we are terrorists".
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/05/binladen.transcript/index.html

Followed by an al Qaeda statement justifying the attacks:

The first charge of the heroes of the New York and Washington attacks was obedience to all of their orders, an obedience that was established before their departure to the enemy's land, beginning with the hero Ahmad al-Ghamdi, may Allah almighty have mercy on him...

We have put forth this directive in order to deliver a new blow to America and to expose to the world the fallacy of the American propaganda which claims it has irrefutable evidence regarding the warriors (mujahideen) who carried out the operation. It claims it has twenty-four thousand threads leading to knowledge of the agents of the operation. But what appears to it as evidence is weaker than a spider's web, and the American case cannot rely upon it to indict the suspects, let alone convince the world with it. In this directive we say to America that hiding all trace of the agents of the operation was not something we considered. Rather, some of the heroes were intent on leaving Islamic fingerprints on the operation. This is a new blow received by the American security agency that has looked here and there in confusion unlike anything ever seen before. On account of the hunt for a trace of the heroes who entered their country, noses have sniffed with honor and pride.

....

These comments about the permissibility of the martyrdom operations in the attack of New York and Washington are taken from the book The Truth about the New Crusader War. Whoever wants further evidence and a detailed discussion of the matter should consult the entire book.
http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol10/alqaeda.html

Al Qaeda released a tape lauding the hijackers involved, all as named by the US:

The al-Jazeera network said the tape was entitled "The wills of the New York and Washington Battle Martyrs" and showed pictures of all 19 hijackers. According to network officials, it was made in the Afghan city of Kandahar about six months before September 11 , and was delivered to the television station last week together with tapes of Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, as part of a documentary put together by a pro al-Qaida production company.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,685127,00.html

There's a claim of responsibility before the anniversary of the attacks:

Two days before the anniversary of the September attacks and at a time the U.S. is using its war on terror to launch an attack against Iraq, Qatar’s Al-Jazeera satellite channel on Monday, September 9, aired video-clips in which it says Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks on the United States.
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-09/10/article02.shtml

Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed explained how they planned the attacks to Al Jazeera:

“Immediately, Khalid introduces himself as head of the military committee of Al Qaeda,” says Fouda. “That committee actually was the arm of Al Qaeda, which decided, first of all, according to Khalid, to strike America inside America and to eventually choose the targets, which were actually hit on Sept. 11.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/08/60II/main524794.shtml

Bin Ladin in 2004:

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind..."

"And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children"
http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/1964.cfm

Al Qaeda had another go at explaining why they carried out the attacks in 2005:

Four years after the blessed raids on New York and Washington, we find the people of the West continuing to speculate about the causes and objectives which lie behind those historic events and subsequent developments. We find them in disagreement over the nature of the people who carry out operations like those on September 11th, March 11th, and July 7th, the nature of their motives, and the nature of the demands they harbor, if any. And most crucially, and as a result of their speculation and disagreement, we find them uncertain about which steps or actions they must take to achieve the restoration of the security they once enjoyed.

Allah is our witness that the numerous audio and videotapes issued by Sheikh Osama bin Ladin, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the other leaders of the jihad have... been released to explain and propound the nature and goals of the worldwide jihad against America and the Crusaders and convey our legitimate demands to friend and foe alike...

As Sheikh Osama has told you repeatedly, your security is dependent on our security. You can't have one without the other. If you ensure our security, you will have automatically ensured your own.

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=850

And in 2006 they tried to tell us that Moussaoui had no part in 9/11, explaining that Bin Ladin picked the hijackers themselves:

Zacarias Moussaoui's role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks was fiercely debated at his recent death penalty trial, with the al-Qaeda conspirator and prosecutors agreeing that he was to fly a fifth hijacked airplane into the White House and defense lawyers insisting he was lying.

Now, someone who ought to know has weighed in: Osama bin Laden.

The fugitive al-Qaeda leader issued a videotape yesterday in which he claims that Moussaoui had "no connection whatsoever with the events of September 11" and that he knows this because "I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers, Allah have mercy upon them, with those raids."

Bin Laden also says in the 4-minute, 34-second message that the hundreds of prisoners the U.S. military is holding at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, "have no connection whatsoever to the events of Sept. 11 and even stranger is that many of them have no connection with al-Qaeda in the first place."

It cannot be determined whether bin Laden is telling the truth, and a U.S. counterterrorism official said the tape is being analyzed. But the official said there is "no reason to doubt that it's real" and that it "was obviously done in recent weeks." The official said analysts believe that as in other recent al-Qaeda releases, bin Laden is trying "to appear relevant and to demonstrate that he's knowledgeable about current events."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301262.html

And then they told us who the 20th hijacker was to be:

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - A Saudi militant killed in 2004 was due to have been the 20th suicide plane hijacker in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, al-Qaida’s media arm said in a statement on the Internet on Tuesday.

“Turki bin Fheid al-Muteiri -- Fawaz al-Nashmi -- may God accept him as a martyr (was) the one chosen by Sheikh Osama bin Laden to be the martyrdom-seeker number 20 in the raid on September 11, 2001,” the statement said.

“The (Sept. 11) operation was brought forward for some circumstances that brother Mohamed Atta explained to the general leadership,” it said, indicating that Muteiri could not join the other hijackers, led by Atta, in time.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13288953/

And these are just the highlights. More than a grainy video? Yes, much more.

 

[Flex]

I've got some time to respond to some older posts, so I will.

That wasn't meant to be an insult, or portray anything. You either believe the "Official" story, or you don't, plain and simple.

Wrong. Just because someone debunks conspiracy theorists does NOT mean they believe the official story in its entirety. I have several questions for the U.S. government about September 11th, but none are absurd like the ones you've brought up in this thread.

Not one official story in history will EVER be 100% accurate, just as the 9/11 comission is not. However, that does not mean its all a sham and bogues claims such as explosives were placed in the trade centers are true. These types of claims are absurd and already have been proven wrong.

No I don't, read what I've said in this thread. "I think something went on that we don't know about". Sure, some initial questions I asked may have been given an explanation, that is what learning is. Asking questions, and looking at evidence to get answers.

It's good to see you're losing faith in 9/11 truth. Over the past two years you've basically gone from "There's no way it was not an inside job!!!" to "I just have some questions that don't add up."

As I've stated several times, every conspiracy theory has been proven wrong. Thus, there's no reason to believe them anymore. There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but all the answers are out there; trust me. You just have to stop avoiding them.

People have said that flight 77, 93 and the WTC steel has vaporized.

Someone saying something "vaporized" in a tragic event is like someone saying they heard an "explosion." You twoofers take them completely out of context. If someone hears a loud bang, they automatically describe it as an explosion, even though it could just be falling objects. Meanwhile, if something is in much smaller pieces, they describe it as "vaporizing." Does that mean it vaporized? Absolutely not.

I know if I was first on the scene at the Pentagon, I would of said "damn, this plane vaporized into a million pieces!" Then BANG, seven years later Ironslave would be using my quote as proof Flight 77 never hit the Pentagon.

Besides, all the people who originally said the steel vaporized have come out and said were taken out of context by twoofers.

This says the steel in NYC was vaporized.

Your video doesn't work, but whoever claimed that needs to check their facts. I've seen the piles of steel collected from the scene, none of it vaporized. The piles of the collapsed trade centers were hundreds of feet high, not "into its own footprint" as twoofers like to claim.

I mentioned we could go back and forth with eye witness accounts and what not, so I guess we will.

Your witness accounts are cherry-picked and entirely taken out of context; the people who stated them could even tell you that. These people obviously expected to see a large intact Boeing 757 on the scene, little do they know what happens when a commercial airliner flying faster than a speeding bullet collides into concrete.

One of your witnesses, Jamie Mcintire even said on CNN-

"For anyone with any common sense and given all the other evidence we have, there's really no doubt that a plane hit the Pentagon..."

There is another video of him speaking about how twoofers took him out of context from 9/11 and have been sending him death threats because he elaborated what he originally said.

My hundreds of convincing witness accounts > your very small amount of misleading witness accounts.

Why isn't it?? Where did it go? Show me something this size please, we are talking about a 757 jumbo jet.

You obviously didn't read the report I posted, stop avoiding evidence.

]Why did they only release some frames? Why not release the whole thing and put an end to it?

/facepalm

That looks awful small to be a letter C on a jumbo 757 Jet.

The C in the picture takin hundredz of feet away lookz way too smallz! 9/11 must be an inside job!!!11

 

[Flex]

Norm Mineta, Secretary of Transportation (who issued grounding of flights on the day), who was in the bunker with Cheney on the day.

Why was his testimony left out of the Official Report??

There was a shoot down order on Flight 77, not a stand-down as twoofers like to claim. Answer this James, if there was a stand down order on NORAD, then why did Dick Cheney and Norm Mineta suppose Flight 93 was shot down until they were told otherwise?

Here is a 9/11 commission staffer's explanation I found from the JREF forums.

As you could find out from several threads on this forum, if you were not prevented by your unwillingness to look, the 9/11 Commission determined that Norman Mineta's timeline was off by at least a half-hour. Christopher Kojm, former senior counsel for the commission, explained to me that Mineta's testimony was left out of the official report for a simple reason: although he tells the same stories as other witnesses, he has every event occurring much earlier than everyone else. As a fantasist, you must reject the consensus as inconvenient to the myths you promote. But, understand that the timeline was established not only by testimony but by the examination of phone logs.
I got myself booted off the LC forum when I pointed out that for the Mineta myth to be true, Dick Cheney's confession in front of several witnesses of his participation in a monstrous crime had to be ignored by every reporter and by every member of the commission. Obviously, Cheney communicated a shoot-down order. But, if he didn't, then we have the biggest story in the history of journalism. There is a reason why no news outlet thinks there is a story here.

and how the report claims that Cheney arrived there over 20 minutes later than Minetta did when he was there.

For Mineta to have his time right then not only must Cheney be wrong, but so too the Secret Service logs (which dicuss Cheney being taken to a underground hallway for protection at around 9:30am when the first reports of a unidentified aircraft came through), the Whitehouse phone logs (which showed when the President and Vice President discussed the shoot down order), the news reporting of the Whitehouse evacuation (which reported people running from the white house and nearby buildings at 9:45am, 25 mintes after Mineta claims it happened), and the testimony of all the others that were there, including Mrs Cheney (who arrived at 9:50am, yet whom Mineta said was there before he arrived at 9:20am) and the officer who was speaking to Cheney. Either everyone else in that room at the time is lying, or Mineta got the time wrong. Which is more likely?

Watch this.

You are right, it makes no sense for you to be answering these questions, it makes sense for the government to answer them! Yet, Bush and Cheney would only agree to a closed door testimony together with no video or note taking allowed. Why wasn't Rumsfeld questioned on his so called "Freudian slip"?

There have been other strange reactions from Bush on where he was, and what he knew that day.

Here's him acting very strange when he was asked if he had advanced knowledge on 9/11.

Or this, where Bush claims he saw the first plane hit the first tower on a TV while waiting outside a classroom.

What the hell are you babbling about!

Look back at all your questions in this thread, you really think George Bush can answer them!? The testimony delt with foreign affairs, not "why the hole at the Pentagon crash looked small." George Bush couldn't even tell you the flight numbers that were hijacked, he knows nothing about 9/11.

Your continuous attaching of Bush to the conspiracies just makes you sound more looney.

 

[Flex]

I mentioned we could go back and forth with eye witness accounts and what not, so I guess we will.


F-16 pilot Dean Eckmann, who was asked to fly over the Pentagon and report on the extent of the damage, said that he suspected that the damage had been caused by “a big fuel tanker truck because of the amount of smoke and flames coming up and ... there was no airplane wreckage off to the side.” [1]

Registered nurse Eileen Murphy, observing the site from the ground, said:


I knew it was a crash site before we got there, and I didn’t know what it was going to look like. I couldn’t imagine because the building is like rock solid. I expected to see the airplane, so I guess my initial impression was, “Where’s the plane? How come there’s not a plane?” I would have thought the building would have stopped it and somehow we would have seen something like part of, or half of the plane, or the lower part, or the back of the plane. So it was just a real surprise that the plane wasn’t there. [2]

Having run to the crash site right after the strike, Engineer Steve DeChiaro, the president of a technology firm, said: "[W]hen I looked at the site, my brain could not resolve the fact that it was a plane because it only seemed like a small hole in the building. No tail. No wings. No nothing.” [3]

Similar testimony was given by firefighters. Although Brian Ladd, a firefighter from Fort Myer, had expected to see pieces of the airplane’s wings or fuselage, he instead saw “millions of tiny pieces [of debris spread] everywhere.” This statement was quoted in Pentagon 9/11, an official account written by the Pentagon’s own historians. This book also says that when Captain Dennis Gilroy---the acting commander of the Fort Myer fire department---arrived, “he wondered why he saw no aircraft parts.” It also reports that another firefighter, Captain John Durrer, “had expected to see large parts of the plane and thought, ‘Well where's the airplane, you know, where's the parts to it?" You would think there'd be something.’” [4]

Military officers gave corroborating testimony. Karen Kwiatkowski, who was then an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel employed at the Pentagon, wrote of “a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. . . . I saw . . . no airplane metal or cargo debris.”5 Army officer April Gallop, who was seriously injured in the attack along with her two-month-old son, said:


I was located at the E ring. . . . And we had to escape the building before the floors, debris etcetera collapsed on us. And I don't recall at any time seeing any plane debris... I walked through that place to try to get out before everything collapsed on us... urely we should have seen something.6

Sgt. Reginald Powell said:


I was... impressed... with how the building stood up, after they told me the size of the plane. And then I was in awe that I saw no plane, nothing left from the plane. It was like it disintegrated as it went into the building. [7]

Similar reports were given by journalists. CNN’s Jamie McIntyre, inspecting the area outside Wedge 1 shortly after the attack, said that he was seeing only “very small pieces of the plane..., small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around.” [8] Two journalists who managed to get inside also reported an absence of the expected debris. Judy Rothschadl, a documentary producer, said: "There weren't seats or luggage or things you find in a plane.” [9] ABC’s John McWethy reported: “I got in very close, got a look early on at the bad stuff. I could not, however, see any plane wreckage.” McWethy added that the plane “had been, basically, vaporized.” [10] In offering this explanation, McWethy was evidently repeating what he had been told by Pentagon officials.

It's unbelievable how hypocritical you're being in this thread Ironslave. You flip out if anyone accuses you of supporting the Pentagon missile theory, yet you use witness accounts to supposevely prove no plane hit the Pentagon.

I also absolutely LOVE how you actually think your witness accounts come close to measuring up to mine.


When over 40 people report a large jumbo jet commercial airliner crashing into the Pentagon (30 adding it specificly belonged to American Airlines), yet two report something smaller...does that mean a smaller plane hit the Pentagon? According to Ironslave, it would. That is the 9/11 truther way!

When 10,000 people first to the scene can confirm AA Flight 77 indeed crashed into the Pentagon, yet a couple confused people on the scene mention they don't see any evidence of a plane at first glance...does that mean 9/11 was an inside job? According to Ironslave, it does. That is the 9/11 truther way!

You know what's funny? EVERY SINGLE one of your witnesses will tell you that Flight 77 DID in-fact hit the Pentagon! Just ask them, I dare you.


Here's just an example of a witness at the Pentagon who's been taken out of context by 9/11 twoofers for years.

Witness acccounts video

Witness accounts alone are enough proof that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Then there's always the photographic evidence.

If this was a court case you would of lost on page one James.

 

[Ironslave]

As I've stated several times, every conspiracy theory has been proven wrong. Thus, there's no reason to believe them anymore. There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but all the answers are out there; trust me. You just have to stop avoiding them.

You obviously didn't read the report I posted, stop avoiding evidence.

Yet somehow, you still don't even bothering to acknowledge the physical chemistry, seizmic analysis, and hundreds of architects, chemists, physicists, engineers and so on? Why not look at that? I'm not avoiding anything, and as you mention below, you've now shown where you get most of your info. Which I briefly checked, and looks like a place for a lot of good debate. I’ll touch on this more later…


The pictures you posted from the first vid does look more like Bin Laden, sure. So, let's still look at those pictures, and compare them to the rest of the ones from the tapes.... again I ask, does the man in the most recent video look anything like the others?

What the hell are you babbling about!

Look back at all your questions in this thread, you really think George Bush can answer them!? The testimony delt with foreign affairs, not "why the hole at the Pentagon crash looked small." George Bush couldn't even tell you the flight numbers that were hijacked, he knows nothing about 9/11.

Your continuous attaching of Bush to the conspiracies just makes you sound more looney.

Give me a break, and stop with the strawman arguments, and even further the implications of being "loony" (if you're going to spell it, at least spell it right). My question of Bush's behaviors don't relate to him understanding the specific structural events, or any other specific details, they relate to:
- How he could have seen the first plane hit on a TV while waiting outside a classroom in Florida, where "the TV was obviously on". Wasn't he inside the classroom when Andy Card whispered it into his ear?
- If he and Cheney had nothing to hide, who wouldn't they appear separately, and allow their testimony to be recorded?
- Why was Bush Sr. meeting with Bin Laden's brother that morning? Then why did all the other Bin Laden's get special privilege to be flown out?

I've asked this before, why are the steel beams cut on a precise angle? This isn't meant to be a "aha, I'm right" It's a question.

For Mineta to have his time right then not only must Cheney be wrong, but so too the Secret Service logs (which dicuss Cheney being taken to a underground hallway for protection at around 9:30am when the first reports of a unidentified aircraft came through), the Whitehouse phone logs (which showed when the President and Vice President discussed the shoot down order), the news reporting of the Whitehouse evacuation (which reported people running from the white house and nearby buildings at 9:45am, 25 mintes after Mineta claims it happened), and the testimony of all the others that were there, including Mrs Cheney (who arrived at 9:50am, yet whom Mineta said was there before he arrived at 9:20am) and the officer who was speaking to Cheney. Either everyone else in that room at the time is lying, or Mineta got the time wrong. Which is more likely?

This is getting into "he said she said". Regardless, let's just say that even if these events are correct as you describe them, why does the 9/11 report say Cheney got there at 9:58? It's possible he's wrong, for sure, but it's something to look into. Where are these phone logs?

For Mineta to have his time right then not only much Cheney be wrong, but so too the Secret Service logs (which dicuss Cheney being taken to a underground hallway for protection at around 9:30am when the first reports of a unidentified aircraft came through), the Whitehouse phone logs (which showed when the President and Vice President discussed the shoot down order), the news reporting of the Whitehouse evacuation (which reported people running from the white house and nearby buildings at 9:45am, 25 mintes after Mineta claims it happened), and the testimony of all the others that were there, including Mrs Cheney (who arrived at 9:50am, yet whom Mineta said was there before he arrived at 9:20am) and the officer who was speaking to Cheney. Either everyone else in that room at the time is lying, or Mineta got the time wrong. Which is more likely?

Just saying, since you took offense earlier to being called a copy and paste wizard, why are you copy and pasting this as your own? This isn't to discredit anything of the point, as it clearly isn’t yours, just merely stating it, since you took great offense to it earlier.

It's good to see you're losing faith in 9/11 truth. Over the past two years you've basically gone from "There's no way it was not an inside job!!!" to "I just have some questions that don't add up."

As I've stated several times, every conspiracy theory has been proven wrong. Thus, there's no reason to believe them anymore. There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but all the answers are out there; trust me. You just have to stop avoiding them.

So? I still don’t think that everything adds up. I’m not avoiding a single thing. You’re the one who claims to be able to answer everything, when really again as above, you are copy and pasting from JREF and wherever else. Again, I ask, tell me what is wrong with the physical chemistry and seismic reports? I know a very tiny bit of phys-chem, so if this is an area you’d like to focus on, I’m not completely in the dark on that. Tell me here, in your words, why this account by a PhD on the energy transfer of the towers collapse is wrong?

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html

Why is this paper by a PhD in Chemistry and a Mechanical Engineer questioning NIST’s findings wrong?

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf

This is from Frank Greening, a PhD, who posts on JREF.
Thus, by the start of 2007, I still had plenty of questions about the official version of the collapse of the Twin Towers. And this is essentially where I stand today. Unlike the self-assured posters on PhysOrg and JREF who claim to KNOW what happened to the Twin Towers, I remain a 9/11 agnostic.
http://911blogger.com/node/7512

You are one of these who claims to “know” what happened to most of these, as in your own words “every single theory has been proved wrong”, and furthermore you claimed that you were “spoonfeeding” knowledge to me.

My hundreds of convincing witness accounts > your very small amount of misleading witness accounts.

I also absolutely LOVE how you actually think your witness accounts come close to measuring up to mine.

Why the fuck are you taking this so personal? You “LOVE” it? Nothing is “yours” or “mine”. Have you ever spoken to one of these witnesses in person? No, and I haven’t either. Why didn’t you comment to the 400-odd engineers/architects/chemists who’ve questioned the “official events”? The point is that these witnesses exist.

http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php


There’s not much point in this going on, I’ll look on JREF and see what’s there from both sides, this is of course, unless you are willing to discuss the chemistry/engineering aspects of the events, which you won’t be (though it probably wouldn’t be a good discussion anyways, because I know only minor phys-chem and less physics). This would also eliminate the middle man, and have debate with both sides who’ve looked into this far more than you, or I. But, the fact remains, why doesn’t the government put an end to all these and just come clean with everything and answer these questions?