IF 9/11 was a proven hoax, what next???

Once again the talking point regurgitators resort to the well rehearsed "conflation of wholly non-related issues" soundbite in their desperate attempt to avoid confronting the mountain of extensively researched and collated evidence of inside planning and execution with military means and precision.

Ignore the acknowledged accounts of the smell of cordite, the (once again) physical impossibility of maintaining a full speed horizontal 757 approach mere inches off off the ground (with nary a divet nor nose down into the ground from the lower hanging engines), or (yet again) the military-level aerial acrobatics of flight 77 acknowledged by many pilots and air traffic controllers
as it made its highly visible bait and switch u-turn over the Pentagon.

No, don't apply critical reasoning to these or any other in a roster of implausibilities (dare say impossibilities in many cases) comprising the "official conspiracy theory", it had to foreign boogeymen! The mental consequences of acknowledging such heinous criminality and institutionalised complicity in control of our "beacon of truth, justice and democracy" are simply too great for the herd psyche to contemplate.

Dance on shaggie, your two step is progressing nicely!

 

No, it rightly exposed them as a roster of less than unimpeachable witnesses for those who, like you, would resort to the talking point of "hundreds of witnesses saw a 757..." as any sort of evidence for the legitimacy of the "official conspiracy theory".

But true to form you persist in pandering so deferentially to the official demand for evidence of any other explanation than that provided by your precious authority figures, regardless of how many times such chronicled research and data has been provided to you and other head in the sanders like you. Nevermind that your precious authority figures have been caught in their own lies time after time on issue after issue since they set the new paradigm in motion. Nevermind that they have:

- remained intractably opposed to any truly exhaustive full public and transparent invesitgation into ALL aspects and official claims of that day (always on the bogus pretext of "national" security - read: their "personal" security);
- confiscated and refused to allow public oversight of countless pieces of data and physical evidence which would exhonerate and vindicate them if their conspiracy theory was remotely factually consistent and plausible;
and
- actively smeared, mocked and hijacked public efforts to establish the truth with the help of their cozy mass media bedfellows from that fateful day to the present.

Somehow none of that is capable of decreasing the the deference shown by the herd as it convinces itself that it demonstrates legitimate critical rational by questioning anything and anyone other than the most glaring fraud and fraudsters of the century itself/themselves.

The evidence and the plausible rational consistency of a wholly inside job, not foreign boogeymen, has been duly and repeatedly presented to you. stop grasping for every avenue offered you by those with a vested interest in avoiding the patented censure of this ruling cabal and open your eyes for a change.

Maybe then you might just realise how ingrained your denial has become.

 

General Partin actually supported conspiracy claims that the Murrah building was blown up intentionally by the government. Even Partin doesn't subscribe to the conspiracy claims about the Pentagon.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/printer_1253.shtml

"
Partin:

"When you slam an aluminum aircraft at high velocity into a concrete structure, it's going to do exactly what we saw happen at the Pentagon on 9/11," Partin said. "If you look at a frontal mass cross-section of the plane, you see a cylinder of aluminum skin with stringers. When it impacts with the exterior [Pentagon] wall at 700-800 feet per second, much of the kinetic energy of the plane converts to thermal energy, and much of the aluminum converts to vapor, burning to aluminum oxide. That's why on the still photos from Pentagon surveillance camera, you first see the frame with that brilliant white luminescent flash just before the frame of the orange fireball, the jet fuel burning. The aluminum cylinder the plane fuselage is acting like a shaped charge penetrating a steel plate. It keeps penetrating until it is consumed. The Boeing 757 is over 150 feet long, so it's going to penetrate quite a ways before it's spent. The wings have a much lower mass cross-section and are loaded with fuel besides, so there is little left of them except small bits and pieces."

General Partin, an Air Force Command Pilot, sums up the case for Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon: "The alternative explanations just get crazier and crazier. In addition to the physical evidence and the photographic evidence supporting the official story, there are literally hundreds of eyewitnesses including many people I know personally who saw the 757. Besides that, there are the light poles that were knocked down which I saw personally and which are in the photographic record that can't be accounted for by a missile or small jet wingspan. Then you have the Flight 77 victim remains and the black boxes. If you reject all of that, then you have to come up with an alternative explanation for what happened to Flight 77. I've seen the alternative explanations and they're absurd!"
"

.

 

The conspiracy advocates at 911review going to have to do better than the following to convince people. From 911review regarding the witnesses:

"All of the people on that list share at least one thing in common: they are all professional liars.It is their job, individually and collectively, to lie to the American people. On a daily basis.They are, by any objective appraisal, propagandists for the state. So if all of them are selling the same story, in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary,it is probably best to assume that they might not be telling the truth."


.

 

And Putin's endorsement is somehow relevant to the extensive evidence under discussion?

Yep, another fine two-step dodge from PB's star apprentice.

Perhaps we can expect the "Chavez doesn't believe it either" non-argument next!

 

Partin, not Putin. Jeez. You could have at least read the post.

.

 

1) An American Airlines flight that took off on the day of the Pentagon attacks, veered off its normal course and headed in the direction of Washington DC
2) A list of passengers on that flight. All deceased.
3) Two phone calls made from that flight reporting it as having been hijacked
4) No reports of AA Flight 77 crashing anywhere else
5) Debris that bears colors strikingly similar to the American Airlines logo
6) Hundreds of eyewitnesses, some of whom identified the airplane specifically as an American Airlines airliner
7) Three more airline flights that were hijacked the same day, two of which crashed into two other buildings
8) They recovered and identified remains of over 60 of the passengers at the Pentagon Crash site


Oh yes but where is the EVIDENCE!!!!!11!!!1!!One!!!!One!1!

 

Too bad you are incapable of both noting the actual truth of the quote you just provided (official paradigm regurgitators are by definition "professional liars" by virtue of their willing collusion with this repeatedly exposed administration of liars) and the much more pertinent closing conditional statement "in the face of compelling evidence" (and extensively research and compiled it is indeed).

Stop pretending you care one iota about the reality of the matter, shag, you have already shown us clearly enough how smugly content you are to remain on the populist misinformation bandwagon.

Further retorts only continue to highlight your foolishness. Next contestant!

 

Of course PB, planes that vaporise on impact yet amazingly 60 bodies recovered from inside the impact site. How miraculously resilient these alleged corpses must have been to avoid vaporising along with all that obviously fragile craft.

Critical rationale at its finest folks.

1. Numerous overlapping military air drills using civilian drone aircraft were underway at the same time. Despite recorded air traffic controller confusion as to what was an actual passenger flight and which was a drill no possible substitution could plausibly exist in the PB buble of delusion.

2. Several lists of passengers actually, none of which have any record of any of the 19 hijackers along with mysteriously absent autopsy reports for the same (notwithstanding 7 who are actually still alive and entirely unrelated to the claimed scenario).

3. Two phone calls which were allegedly made from the planes, whose transcripts are the most unconvincing testimony to actual in-flight hijackings or presence of the caller on any of the flights in question. Again, in PB's little fantasy world of "accept what officials claim without question" those calls could not have come from any other phone or dare say well known computer voice modelling software developed by our intelligence services. No, how preposterous, has to be foreign bogeymen with box cutters and no flying ability whatsoever!

4. Gee no reports, cause information blackouts are so beyond the capabilities and historic precedents of both our military establishment and collusionist corporate media, of course. Perhaps that why it took a year for the NYT to deign to expose the ongoing illegal NSA wiretapping of US citizens phones authorised by the Bush admin. Gee wonder what those interceptor jets could possibly been doing having been sent out over the Atlantic rather than to Pentagon airspace, possibly blowing what they were told was a hijacked craft out of the sky where it would never be found? hmmmmm.... don't try to apply too much reason, its clearly beyond your intellectual capacities.

5. Oooh debris randomly (and wrongly) scattered about for the necessary photo ops. Matching colours of course also being so impossible to ensure for our multi-billion dollar a year defence boys. We understand.

6. Hundreds of supposed eyewitnesses whose testimonies are not only all over the place factually but, as already dealt with, also considerably after the fact once the public perception management PR bandwagon was well into its repeated and widespread broadcast mode. Try again old boy, your brain is clearly stuck in "hear no evil, see no evil" mode.

7. which are aspects of the overall days scenario in their own right and equally dealt with in the full body of public evidence of insider planning and execution. We're discussing the Pentagon attack, try to keep up.

8. Your most telling admission of mentally compacency yet, and duly dispelled above as laughable, unproven hogwash made for ready consumption by gullible fools like yourself and your fellow bandwagoneers.

You ARE the weakest link...goodbye!

 

If they vaporised, why was there debris? This is called creating a straw man argument, and then refuting it. Please respond to actual arguments, not arguments you made up for your own convenience.

Nobody said they recovered any corpses. Again, you are making up arguments for your own convenience. They did recover DNA, it took a long time, and they weren't able to identify everyone.

Lick toasts his victory as another wave of straw men is defeated.

What I said was that "An American Airlines flight that took off on the day of the Pentagon attacks, veered off its normal course and headed in the direction of Washington DC". Your response has nothing at all to do with this.

Seven people with the same name, not the same seven people. This was resolved years ago, you must be among the last to know.

I think the idea that intelligence agents could pick two passengers in advance, record their voices and speech patterns, develop a real time voice synthesis program, call their close family and successfully impersonate them is preposterous, yes. When you start looking for these sorts of alternate explanations for every aspect of 9/11, before long you need about 100,000 people to carry out the conspiracy.

That's nice, but you are still missing a rather large plane. I would also note that the idea that they would divert the flight so they could blow it up over the ocean and then fly a missile into the Pentagon instead is really one of the dumbest and most illogical alternative explanations I have ever heard. Why would they go to so much trouble when airplanes were good enough for the WTC?

"Ooh". Is that your argument? "Oooh"? This is, as so many have said, the beauty of conspiracy theories. They demand evidence, but when it is provided, well isn't it suspicious that there is evidence!

Again, if you can simply dismiss so many eyewitness testimonies, they what exactly is the point of providing evidence?

That was meaningless. Nobody has ever provided an explanation of why such a bizarre and complex scheme would have been hatched for the Pentagon when a plane would have accomplished the same thing. That's why you evaded the question.

HipForum's angriest troll strikes again.

Humour's not your strong suit Lick, stick with angry.

 

i'm not saying it was or it wasn't,because i wasn't there,and i don't know.

what i know is that the two theories are just as possible.

------
i will not be argumenting for the official opinion,because it has already been done.
------
on behalf of my conspirationists brothers,some of you people want facts.what do you consider a fact?what you hear from "official sources"?what makes those sources so trustworthy?where do those sources come from?they come from people you don't know.of course,their families know and trust them,but how do YOU know they're telling the truth?because of the irefutable facts and probability?what are those,films that could have been faked and declarations of people you don't know,and even if you knew,don't know wether they spoke the truth or not?

and even if you were there,that doesn't mean you've seen what really happened even if YOU SAW a plane hitting the pentagon.
that doesn't mean a plane really hit the pentagon,i see bush in my TV daily,that doesn't mean he's there.and the comparison isn't exagerated at all.

-------

i'm shocked when i see people are so convinced about things they only heard/seen films about.



to answer the original question of the thread:
IF the 9/11 was a hoax,then you have 2 choices:
1.try to get as up the ladder as possible by being a truly exceptional individual,so you're the one controlling others,and you get controlled by less people
2.get a good tent,a big backpack and stop any contact with the bureaucracy and any institution which require any information on yourself,burn your id card and papers,refuse any asistance the sistem gives you (like healthcare),take home made drugs,make love,leave your house and live in a hut.

 

Inattentive and lost in your self reinforced bubble as ever PB (not to mention your stock in trade use of self applicable accusations). No strawman argument whatsoever if you actually read anything besides your next idiotic retort...

Yes indeed, all that thermal energy capable of melting a 757 down to supposed scattered debris but unable to incinerate flesh and blood. 911 miracle physics for the intellectually feable strikes again!

Ah so now they recovered DNA and not "remains" from a impact site so hot it melts a full passenger airliner. Obviously there isnt a single official claim you won't accept regardless of the continued lack of any public presentation of evidence by the agencies involved from that day to the present. You've been watching far too much CSI Miami apparently. LOL.

The rest of your drivel is nothing more than the same tired unsupported personal opinion of one who actually has nothing more than a surface view of the machinations of power ala tabloid and televised "news" soundbites.

- Not seven people with the same name im afraid, the seven aleged by photograph to have been involved, but who were in their own country and entirely unrelated to any suppose d"extremist" plot. (ooh dear can't be a plot, that would be a "conspiracy theory", errr unplanned multiple attack, much better.) If anyone is out of touch with the facts, it has ever been you and those who parrot your lame denials.

- As to your unquestioned accpetance of the alleged "cellphone" calls made from full speed high altitude airliners, sorry, been well and truly dispelled for some time now.

http://web.archive.org/web/20031205030903/feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/media_release_030304.html

As to the dodgy calls themselves, obviously no alarm bells are triggered in your dull unquestioning mind at the documented greeting of his mother by flight 93 "hero" Mark Bingham... "Hello Mom, this is Mark Bingham"... yeah right, we all make a habit of telling our own mothers our full names. The other alleged calls are just as hokey.

As to the voice morphing technology mentioned previously. obviously what you "think" (or refuse to bother thinking, by repeated demonstration in nearly every post you make on these boards) and what IS are two vastly different things. When it comes to last to inform oneself, noone takes the prize like PB!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

Gee, too much for you to reason out for yourself is it?

Lets see, the WTC hits occurred tens of stories above ground within physically possible heights for passenger sized jets, the pentagon strike occurred on the ground level mere inches from the ground after an alleged aerial maneuvre and descent to an amazing horizontal approach indicative not only of superior military flying capabilities but also of the need for a much more maneuvrable craft (explosive laden-UAV, "missile", etc) than a jumbo jet.

It would have been more than sufficient for flight 77 to have been in Pentagon airspace within visibile range of the freeway for the aerial amanuevres to catch attention before dropping out of sight to be replaced by the fast moving attack vehicle over the freeway and lawn into the wrong (i.e. largely unpopulated) side of the Pentagon. Not any stretch to consider that those capable of pulling off a modern falss flag operation akin to Operation Northwoods would have no issue with disposing of the plane and its passengers by any other means elsewhere.

But this has been pointed out to you time and again with full logical plausibility and consistency resulting in nothing more than your reversion back into your shell of denial.

Keep on being the trollish apologist for the greatest traitors and mass murders ever to lead our nation, it's clearly your forte.

 

Well, the evidence is there that you make up arguments and refute them. I'm sorry if that makes you angry.

Thermal energy doesn't scatter debris. Thermal means heat, stupid. Kinetic energy scatters debris. Please stop trying to impress us with your scientificalness. And he said "much of the aluminum". You have converted this to "the plane was vaporised" because you are a dishonest, raving troll. Also, wouldn't calling me "intellectually feeble" be a more convincing insult if you could spell it correctly?

Now? You're the one who was getting it wrong. There is no real difference between DNA and remains. Finding corpses (your straw man argument, remember? it was only a few minutes ago), on the other hand, is something completely different.

You have to learn to differentiate between "I found a conspiracy theory website that says" and "it is a fact that". After all, the moon landings have been well and truly dispelled for some time now. Or have they?

There is a difference between a live conversation with your own mother and synthesising someone's voice.

So you think that it would have been impossible to hit the largest building in the world with an airplane, so difficult that a more reasonable idea would be to have flight 77 fly around for show before "dropping out of sight" (no explanation provided, of course), create a fake mystery plane/missile and crash it into the pentagon, planting fake witnesses and wreckage all around, bending a few lamposts here and there, and getting all the fire, cleanup, investigation crews and employees to play along with it. Meanwhile making Flight 77 and all its passengers disappear into thin air. That makes more sense to you than being able to crash into the world's largest building. That's why you're a moron.

Operation Northwoods, you mean that plan that never happened and which was conveniently revealed to the public by TEH GOVERNMENT!!!!!1!1!!!!!! The same government which plotted 9/11. Anyway I guess your argument is that it "just disappears", and no explanation is needed because we're talking about super secret Mossad operatives who can do anything, so a complete lack of any evidence whatsoever is hardly a weakness in the theory.

 

No, this has always been your role on these boards and you continue to wear the mantle proudly. Your grammatical naziism only further evidence of how desperate you are to avoid the laughable inconsistencies of all you regularly make apology for.

Nice dodge that avoid acknowledging the difference between large (sprawling but low-rise) and tall (as in the significant higher-rising towers.

Yes indeed it would be impossible, if you bothered to actually research the aerodynamics of full sized commercial airliners rather than regurgitate the official line, for flight 77 to have made a horizontal approach indicated by clipped obstacles commencing as far away as 1 mile before the Pentagon, over the freeway where the vortices alone would have blown cars (and certainly alleged witnesses who were out of their cars) all over the place like rag dolls, and over the pentagon lawn to strike the pentagon at ground floor level (requiring the engines to have left deep furroughs in the pentagon lawn if not detach completely and drive the plane into the ground well before reaching the wall).

http://physics911.net/harel.htm

Once again, you remain the most unresearched, unreasoned criminal apologist troll on these boards.

blather on ignoramus!

 

And would you describe the WTC towers as wide? Poor effort Lick, very poor.

 

Pointbreak,do you misinterpret lickHERish's words on purpose?
let me rephrase them:

1."Hello Mom, this is Mark Bingham"
ok,we can't know if the call was real or computer made.but the introduction is strange to say the least.is this official?

2."Nice dodge that avoid acknowledging the difference between large (sprawling but low-rise) and tall (as in the significant higher-rising towers.)"
large (sprawling but low-rise)= the pentagon
tall(higher-rising towers)= the twin towers,WTC
where does he say anything about the WTC being wide?and if they were wide or not is irrelevant.what is important is that they were tall,so their side walls (vertical ones) gave the plane a greater and more accesible target than the side walls of the pentagon.

 

Obviously you truly have a conceptual disability PB. That was your lamest retort yet, but hardly surprising.

Perhaps you need to go back to uni and learn the difference between low-rise and high-rise as it applies to plausible targets for a 757 passenger airliner traveling at full speed.

Then again, don't bother, ignorant and evasive drivel has become your trademark.

Satirul, youll soon catch on to the fact that PB actively evades acknowledging even such childishly simple conceptual logic, since he must desperately cling to his delusions that the US government could never perpatrate calculated evil upon anyone, let alone its own citizens.

Just return the mockery he dishes out to everyone who dares disturb his fantasy with evidence and fact. Maybe one day the OPs will wise up and ban him for the pathetic troll he has ever been around here.

 

Sounds strange to me too. I guess he was facing death and had to leave basically his last words on an answering machine. So he was probably a bit nervous.

My point is that hitting the largest building in the world wouldn't be that hard. People land on runways, which are by definition flat. And no, he didn't say they were wide. That's the contradiction. Hitting a narrow target is apparently easy, but hitting a short target is so impossibly difficult that a bizarre conspiracy involving disappearing planes and remote controlled missile firing drones is more plausible. Of couse in other versions of the conspiracy nobody could have hit the WTC towers because they were too narrow, so either the pilots were professionals or they were remote controlled to. But then you cannot explain why they would do things differently in the two instances.

 

Another classic evasion of any questioning of the matter from our resident criminal apologist. ROFLMAO!!!

Since it is well known that Mrs. Bingham answered the phone and spoke to whomever (or whatever) claimed to be her son - despite the technological impossibility of even obtaining let alone maintaining a conversation at high altitude and full flight speed with a cell phone (not plane mounted seat phone) - you have once again exposed the fact that you have not bothered to ever objectively review the volumnous evidence compiled by public researchers before launching into your patented dismissals.

Obviously you have argued from the start on nothing more substantive than the official claims fed to you by print media headlines and mainstream network pundits. Thank you for confirming the suspicions of numerous forum members.

Gee, again the conceptual handicap shines through brilliantly!

Let spell it out for our mentally challenged troll shall we?...

Landing a plane on a flat runway is done by decelerating and descending at a controllable rate, PB. Nose up, flaps extended, etc etc. A far cry from a 7000 foot descent in a matter of seconds to supposedly level out at a physically impossible height above ground for a passenger airliner at full speed(notwithstanding the prior expert military-level 270 degree aerial acrobatics allegedly performed by a wholly unskilled pilot). You'd truly do well to go do some reading on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects which the author of the previously provided article indicates as several indicators of such sustained low-flight impossibility.

As for the WTC, there again the concurrent military air drills and multiple drone craft cluttering air traffic controller screens at the time make remote controlled military drone aircraft (quite real and regularly used for a range of military applications) substitution for guaranteed target contact much more plausible, while the passenger airliners were far more likely rerouted and shot down elsewhere or otherwise disposed of. There are accounts of at least one of the flight's aircraft registry numbers having been sighted with a new flight number assigned to it. Only a fully unhindered and exhaustive public scouring of official agencies'/airlines records and data storehouses would confirm the truth of that. Not with this investigation-obstructing administration still in power though.

Perhaps if you could exercise an ounce of critical rationality it might begin to dawn on you that well known remote control technology and smaller more maneuverable attack craft of some kind is indeed far more plausible and in fact necessary if such a ground level Pentagon attack were to have had any chance of success (as it had).

Since you cannot and will not excercise such rational and investigatory review, the more logically capable will just have to continue exposing you for the moron you are. It is entertaining in short bursts, admittedly!

For the more critically capable however, this excerpt (see link in prior post)exposes much more effectively the impossibility of any 757 having hit the Pentagon...

 

The speed of the 'object'. Does NOT conclude anything more than what has been within the public domain since the start of the 'Moussaoui trial', i agree with you. So effectively it is as if the footage was not released.

This footage only refreshes the 'debate'. It does not end it. Nothing will end it. We still discuss JFK and 'Did jesus excist''. I doubt some dodgy footage will put this too bed.

Not really, it is the bare essentials at the time of going to press.

It was kept back because of the 'Moussaoui trial'. You can fashion some alternative reasoning if you so desire.

That page was put up within hours of the footage being released. I doubt they had the time to do any 'investigating'. They still have http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1907955.stm . I suspect the BBC do not give two hoots about the 'truth'. It is not for them to come to any conclusions. They will as always just regurgitate EVERYTHING regardless . Forming no opinion comeing to no conclusion.

Are you talking about Moussaoui ? Who was not on the plane . Do you mean somebody else ?. Forgive me i don't know what you are talking about.

With out seeing 'American airlines' on the side of that image. I think your scepticism is still able to withstand the opposite point of view.

'Thread killer' ? Naghhhhh

You have no idea what i think. I posted it because
it was a source of that particular information . If i had posted it from the POV of the 'sceptics', would it have any less or more credance ?. It's just the bare facts dude, chill out.

I did not 'believe it' . It was merely the 'source' i had been watching on TV.

I am sure if i had searched harder, i could have found a more suitable source. I'm just lazy.

You could have atleast given me a chance to respond further than a 'link', before denouncing me so. I suspect it is easyier for you to do that , than wait a while.