Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Witnesses

Postby Qutb » Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:23 pm

"The very credible witnesses -firefighters and medics- at the WTC who describe controlled demolition ought to be, in my mind, the focus on 9/11."<br><br>They don't describe controlled demolition. They describe "explosions". They were witnesses to a <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>skyscraper</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> being hit by <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Boeings</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> - loaded with jet fuel and flying at full speed - and subsequently collapsing. <br><br>Imagine the chaos and confusion that reigned. Imagine the effects of jet fuel cascading down elevator shafts and stairwells ("holy hell coming down the stairs"). Imagine the <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>noise</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> of a skyscraper collapsing. Imagine being in the middle of that and not knowing what's going on.<br><br>Example in point: one of the eyewitnesses has reported "orange flashes" going around the building (for what must be about half an hour!). The same woman also referred to one of the collapses, which she had to flee from, as "an explosion". She didn't realize the building collapsed, she thought the whole thing was "an explosion".<br><br>That's your "very credible witnesses".<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Qutb
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 2:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Witnesses

Postby sockmonkey » Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:28 pm

I think the totality of the evidence is pretty convincing. For one thing, flight controllers tracked it on radar almost all the way
<br><br>All the way to where?<br><br>Remember the diagrams of Flight 77's flight path ?<br><br>What exactly did the dashed/ dotted segment represent? <p></p><i></i>
sockmonkey
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Witnesses

Postby NewKid » Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:50 pm

<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>There will always be some loose ends... and the number of loose ends you see will depend on how suspicious you are. However, seeing the evidence as a whole (of which eye witness reports are the least important), and the absence of any evidece to the contrary, I'm quite confident that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. I see no particular reason to doubt it. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Now fast forward less than of couple of hours later to the illuminati video thread where we get a response to this question Rothbardian asks:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"How, for example, do 99.9% of the population not know that Laura Bush killed her boyfriend in high school? It has nothing to do with being a carefully crafted secret--- the PTB stay under the radar by simply nudging certain things out of the media mainstream, and that literally covers 99% of us."<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>To which Qutb responded:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I don't "know" that Laura Bush did that, either... <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br>Now perhaps that's just an objection to the form of the question, but I have to say Qutb, I don't get your epistemology.<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Witnesses

Postby Qutb » Mon Mar 06, 2006 1:06 pm

The evidence for Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon is more substantial than the evidence for Laura Bush killing her boyfriend, I think.<br><br>That said, I've never delved into the Laura Bush murder case. Maybe it's better documented than I think. <p></p><i></i>
Qutb
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 2:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Witnesses

Postby NewKid » Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:52 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The evidence for Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon is more substantial than the evidence for Laura Bush killing her boyfriend, I think.<br><br>That said, I've never delved into the Laura Bush murder case. Maybe it's better documented than I think. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I'm afraid it is. Now like I said, perhaps the word 'killing' used here evoked the notion of intentional homicide, and to that extent you'd be correct that there is nothing to support that. But as far as I know, the fact that Laura Bush accidentally killed someone in high school is not open to dispute. She admits it, there's a police report on it, and there are newspaper stories on it at the time. I'm too lazy to pull up more than this, but I think you'll agree, this isn't really open to dispute.<br><br><br>From a CBS news story with a Laura Bush biographer:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Laura, they learned, had been speeding blithely out of town about 8 P.M., east on Farm Road 868, her high school friend Judy Dykes in the passenger seat. She never saw the stop sign. She never saw the other car. She plowed right through that stop sign and slammed hard into the 1962 Corvair coming south and with the right-of-way, on State Road 349, the La Mesa Highway. She was fine, really, the officer assured her parents, but bruised and banged up, and awfully upset. Judy was shaking but unharmed as well. But the boy in the other car, well, the force of the broadside impact was so severe that, well...He never had a chance. Michael Douglas, golden boy of Midland, high school track star, was dead on arrival at Midland Memorial Hospital. The two girls were taken there, too, in another ambulance. Mike Douglas's father had been driving another car behind his son. He saw the entire horrific scene, the explosive beginning of a nightmare that haunted him his whole life. <br><br>The front-page story in the Midland Reporter-Telegram was blunt and nonaccusatory. "Police said death was attributed to a broken neck," the paper reported, using that passive voice peculiar to newspaper writing. But the news flew through Midland about whose actions had caused that death. <br><br>Killing another person was a tragic, shattering error for a girl to make at seventeen. It was one of those hinges in a life, a moment when destiny shuddered, then lurched in a new direction. In its aftermath, Laura became more cautious and less spontaneous, more inclined to be compassionate, less inclined to judge another person. <br><br>What made the crash even more devastating was that the boy Laura killed was no stranger but a good friend of hers, a boy from her crowd. Some said Mike Douglas was her boyfriend. Or had been, or maybe she wanted him to be. ... <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/07/earlyshow/leisure/books/main591951.shtml" target="top">www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/07/earlyshow/leisure/books/main591951.shtml</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>From snopes:<br><br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Claim: While a teenager, future First Lady Laura Bush caused the death of a classmate in a car accident. <br><br>Status: True. <br><br><br>snip<br><br><br>In May 2000, a two-page police report pertaining to a fatal accident that had taken place near Midland, Texas, in 1963 was made public. It contained the information that 17-year-old Laura Welch had run a stop sign, causing the death of the sole occupant of the vehicle hers had struck. According to that report, the future First Lady had been driving her Chevrolet sedan on a clear night shortly after 8 p.m. on 6 November 1963 when she entered an intersection without heeding the stop sign and there collided with the Corvair sedan driven by 17-year-old Michael Douglas. Also in the car with Laura Welch was a passenger, 17-year-old Judy Dykes. <br><br>How fast Miss Welch might have been driving is open to question. That part of the police report is illegible, although two biographies of the First Lady refer to her as having been going 50 mph at the time of the collision. The speed limit on that portion of road was 55 mph. According to the police report neither driver had been drinking, but no tests were performed. No charges were filed as a result of the accident. <br><br>News accounts from 1963 reported the young man as having been thrown from his car and dying of a broken neck; he was pronounced dead on arrival at Midland Memorial Hospital. According to various biographies of Mrs. Bush, the boy's father had been travelling in a car immediately behind his son's and witnessed the whole thing. <br><br>The two teen girls were taken to the same hospital and treated for minor injuries that amounted to bumps and bruises. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br> . . .<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp" target="top">www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><br>Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how the evidence for this story could possibly be less substantial than the Pentagon attack. <br> <br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

phones

Postby smithtalk » Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:17 am

qutb, you have to be kidding,<br><br>it was categorically stated that the majority of the calls were from cell phones,<br>no airline in the world has yet got a system where people can use cell phones in passenger planes, not because its unsafe but because they need new technology which is experimental to facilitate it,<br>most reckon they will have it by 2006,<br>seriously, dude, the fucking phone calls are ridiculous,<br>stick to the points you have a hope of defending <p></p><i></i>
smithtalk
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: phones

Postby Qutb » Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:47 am

No, I'm pretty convinced all the cell phone calls did happen. I've also read more technical explanations for why it would be possible... I don't have the time to find it, but it's on the web for those who are interested.<br><br>A common mistake people make: not reading the counterarguments of a theory before they choose to believe it. <p></p><i></i>
Qutb
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 2:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: radar all the way?

Postby AlicetheCurious » Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:32 am

Qutb said (way back on page 2):<br><br>"I think the totality of the evidence is pretty convincing. For one thing, flight controllers tracked it on radar almost all the way."<br><br>Really? <br><br>Thank you for sharing with us that you think "the totality of the evidence is pretty convincing." Good for you. Would it be too much to ask that you accompany your bold and confident statements with some supporting evidence? Or maybe just a source so we could evaluate it for ourselves? That would be so great...<br><br>As for that radar thing, I think you've made a booboo with that:<br><br>"It also moved nothing like a passenger airplane, at least on radar. Air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who had earlier that morning cleared Flight 77 for take-off from Dulles, certainly didn't think it was a Boeing 757 that she was tracking on radar as it approached Washington. <br><br>What she initially saw was "an <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>unidentified</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> plane to the southwest of Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed ... I had literally a blip and nothing more." O'Brien described her impression of the projectile that she tracked: "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." <br><br>The consensus opinion among the controllers, after tracking some of the movements of the projectile, was that it "must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and to protect our president." Of the final portion of the aircraft's destructive journey, O'Brien has said: <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>"We lost radar contact with that craft. And we waited. And we waited."</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br>(<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20011024150915/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/2020_011024_atc_feature.html)">web.archive.org/web/20011...ture.html)</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>[I actually had to dig this one out of the Wayback Machine...I guess that just shows I have too much time on my hands, eh?]<br><br>Thus it is that, with the cell phone thing, I'm not quite utterly and totally persuaded by the subtlety of your reasoning and the devastating power of your evidence:<br><br>"<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>I'm pretty convinced</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> all the cell phone calls did happen. I've also read more technical explanations for why it would be possible... I don't have the time to find it, but it's on the web for those who are interested."<br><br>Well. There you go. It's "on the web". WHAT MORE DO YOU PEOPLE NEED!!! Go look for it. On the web. <p></p><i></i>
AlicetheCurious
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:45 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Evidence on the Web

Postby nomo » Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:22 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Well. There you go. It's "on the web". WHAT MORE DO YOU PEOPLE NEED!!! Go look for it. On the web.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Now now, I don't think that's fair, Alice, considering that you just pulled up this radar/flight control "evidence" from the Wayback Machine.<br><br>Be skeptical of anything you find on the Web, of course, but that's sadly the only source of "evidence" both you and I have access to. <br><br>It's kind of ironic though, that we have all these reports stating the inteligence services as well as the White House have been warned <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>for years</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> about terrorists <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>using airplanes as missiles</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, and now these 9/11 "truth seekers" are trying to convince us that that's exactly what <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>didn't</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> happen. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
nomo
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:48 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Evidence on the Web

Postby AlicetheCurious » Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:56 pm

Yeah, well, nomo, re: the many warnings, etc., you are forgetting the many honest, dedicated, decent agents that were just trying to do their job the best they can.<br><br>The fact that somehow all those warnings were 'ignored' and their investigations were sabotaged by their superiors who were later rewarded for their so-called incompetence with wonderful promotions, I don't know... Do you think it's possible that they were rewarded because they did exactly what they were supposed to do?<br><br>Does that help, nomo? Remember that to have a really effective conspiracy, you don't need vast hordes of conspirators, just a very few who are strategically placed where they can be most effective. Get it? <br><br>It would be interesting to see who among those shamefully "incompetent" people were subsequently promoted and rewarded with more responsibilities over life or death decisions.<br><br>Although this press release from Judicial Watch is pushing the "incompetence" mantra, it's interesting for the fact that it contradicts itself within a few lines:<br><br>"Prior to September 11th, SA Wright alleged <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>FBI intelligence agents lied and hid vital records from criminal agents for the purpose of obstructing his criminal investigation of the terrorists in order to protect their “subjects,” and prolong their intelligence operations.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> <br>SA Wright was stunned to learn recently that some of the FBI intelligence agents that had <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>stalled and obstructed his criminal investigations of terrorists</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> in Chicago had also <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>lied to the judges</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> of the FISA Court in Washington, DC.<br><br>SA Wright says that, in his opinion, prior to September 11th, the ITU’s incompetence and repeated failures to support criminal investigations contributed directly to the deaths of five Americans. The ITU’s <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>absolute failure to detect and identify the September 11th terrorist plot, and the radical Islamists that carried it out</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, is further evidence of the ITU’s negligence, and places the deaths of thousands of Americans at their door."<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_2469.shtml">www.judicialwatch.org/printer_2469.shtml</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
AlicetheCurious
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:45 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Evidence on the Web

Postby Qutb » Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:23 pm

Alice, I'm not interested in participating in another 20-page discussion over this. It would demand way too much time and energy and in the end, everyobody would still hold the same position, only more vehemently . I'm convinced Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. You're free to believe otherwise. <p></p><i></i>
Qutb
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 2:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Evidence on the Web

Postby nomo » Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:40 pm

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The fact that somehow all those warnings were 'ignored' and their investigations were sabotaged by their superiors who were later rewarded for their so-called incompetence with wonderful promotions, I don't know... Do you think it's possible that they were rewarded because they did exactly what they were supposed to do?</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Why yes, certainly. But that begs the question: what exactly were they told to look away from, if not from a <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>actual </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->group of criminals who were <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>actually </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->planning to fly airliners into buildings?<br><br>I guess my take on all this is that there was indeed a group of hijackers, and there were indeed planes flown into these buildings, and the group was carefully monitored to ensure the success of their mission -- up to the point where I am willing to entertain the possible use of remote control to aid in all this.<br><br>But I sometimes think that the perpetrators and their abettors might have been just as surprised as the rest of us when the buildings came tumbling down. They probably figured a live plane crash would have been a pretty good show all by itself, and I can almost imagine the muttered "WTF"s and "holy sh!t"s in their secret control room/cave/undisclosed location.<br><br>Of course, that didn't stop them from running with it.<br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
nomo
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:48 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Evidence on the Web

Postby NewKid » Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:45 pm

Alice, what you're seeing here are a lot of conclusory statements and easily answerable hypothetical questions, and not much analysis, argument or evidence. If you're wondering where's the beef in all this, it hasn't shown up yet. Your instincts are right to question this stuff. <br><br>Now, none of us has personal knowledge of what happened, so to a great extent we have to cue take from sources we consider reliable. But I'm afraid that becomes much more difficult in something like this, and arguments from authority just don't have near the force they normally would have when you're talking about something like 9-11. <br><br>Everyone has their pet theory on what happened and the tendency to think you know what happened is very compelling. I would urge everyone here to keep an open mind. But Qutb's right that it would probably be a waste to keep going at it on this. We should probably wait for further developments. <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Evidence on the Web

Postby AlicetheCurious » Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:02 pm

Et tu, NewKid?<br><br>I don't think it's a waste of time, when some of us here go digging up information that points directly to motive, means & opportunity for such a seminal crime as the 9/11 attacks.<br><br>What is truly a waste of time, is paying any attention to any statements not supported by either logic or documentation.<br><br>FYI, I participate in such discussions to become more informed, and also to bring to the table any evidence that I think may interest others who are searching for answers, especially to obvious questions that are neither asked nor answered in the corporate media.<br><br>If anybody is not interested, they don't have to continue to read the thread. If anybody disagrees, they should say why, using logic and evidence. Then other readers can make up their own minds. <p></p><i></i>
AlicetheCurious
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:45 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Evidence on the Web

Postby NewKid » Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:29 pm

Sure, of course. All I meant was it was a waste of time trading conclusory statements without any evidence. I encourage you and anyone else who wants to make an argument or discuss evidence or think outloud or whatever. <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to 9/11

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests