Where were you? [modified]
-
Its the 11th of Sept here at the moment and I thought it would be interesting to see where everyone was on this day 6 years ago when you heard about the attacks in the US I was here[^] on a surfing trip with a mate, its was late at night and we we're sitting up waiting for some other friends to drive up from Sydney. We'd both fallen asleap while watching the telly when someone called to tell us what was happening. We saw the second aircraft crash into the building and stayed up most of the night watching the reports. It was very sureal to wake up too especially considering we were very very stoned and worn out from a long day of driving / surfing -- modified at 3:20 Tuesday 11th September, 2007 I really cant spell to save my life
-
Red Stateler wrote:
What happened to that 757 that left Boston that morning? How do you explain the 757 parts strewn about the Pentagon's lawn after the crash?
I asked this too, and it's the main question I have, beyond the 'why'.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
Christian Graus wrote:
I asked this too, and it's the main question I have, beyond the 'why'.
If you get a chance, see if you can find the History Channel show I'm talking about. I don't remember the name, but it was a 2-hour long rational comparison of conspiracy theorists along with interviews of experts and eyewitnesses. What's funny is that the group of people that authored that movie up on Google Video a while back turns out to be a few unkempt early 20-somethings crammed into a 1-bedroom apartment insisting that they know better than the numerous structural engineers, demolition experts, pilots and more who addressed each of the conspiracy claims. They tracked down people who were on the seen of the Pensylvania crash site who stated they saw body parts (the conspiracy theorists claimed that nobody did). They tracked down various people that the conspiracy theorists "quoted" and the people "quoted" said they the "quotes" were taken completely out of context. They had various engineers stating that the towers fell exactly as they would have expected. etc...etc...etc...
-
Its the 11th of Sept here at the moment and I thought it would be interesting to see where everyone was on this day 6 years ago when you heard about the attacks in the US I was here[^] on a surfing trip with a mate, its was late at night and we we're sitting up waiting for some other friends to drive up from Sydney. We'd both fallen asleap while watching the telly when someone called to tell us what was happening. We saw the second aircraft crash into the building and stayed up most of the night watching the reports. It was very sureal to wake up too especially considering we were very very stoned and worn out from a long day of driving / surfing -- modified at 3:20 Tuesday 11th September, 2007 I really cant spell to save my life
I was asleep :(
-
Which of you came up with that?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Which of you came up with that?
You're confusing schizophrenia with multiple personalities disorder. Schizophrenia is "the deterioration of the human personality" and is often associated with jumbled and nonsensical speech.
-
I would imagine that just as there are plenty of churches in the US that don't do that, there are plenty that, like the one I went to briefly in Australia, very much do.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find one, and you can certainly find fundamentalists who consider religion and politics to be one and the same. But the notion that there is some kind of political agenda among the rank and file church goers in the US is just rediculous. If and when you do get the average church going christian to comment to a political opinion it is typically more liberal in nature than conservative.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
and smell the reality
So it's your opinion that a "smallish" group within the current US administration (POTUS, VPOTUS and the entire DOD) conspired to kill thousands of innocent civilians? 1. Why? 2. How did they manage to pull it off, considering how inept they've proven to be in ALL other areas?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
So it's your opinion that a "smallish" group within the current US administration (POTUS, VPOTUS and the entire DOD) conspired to kill thousands of innocent civilians?
Yes, not because I like the idea but because it's the most reasonable explanation of the evidence that I've come accross.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
1. Why?
Allowing for the obvious fact that anyone doing this is insane and their motivations are therefore not necessarily determinable I would hazard that politicial and financial advantange along with it being part of their occult belief system. Dependening on the level of those involved. At the outside you have the Silverstein's, in for the money, cooperating but unaware of the full extent. At the next ring you have the Strausian brigade for whom killing innocent civillian American type people is an acceptable sacrifice to allow them to kill more dangerous subversive foreign people who might hate America. At least if they don't now we'll make damn sure they do soon and then we'll be justified. All ostensibly to 'protect' America but really a political power grab using reheated cold war methods of fear herding. TBC...
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
and smell the reality
So it's your opinion that a "smallish" group within the current US administration (POTUS, VPOTUS and the entire DOD) conspired to kill thousands of innocent civilians? 1. Why? 2. How did they manage to pull it off, considering how inept they've proven to be in ALL other areas?
...These may be the motivations of the useful idiots but the motivations of the core of compotent people who keep their heads down are more difficult to fathom. These are the people who got most of the US fighter aircraft moved to Northern Canada just at the right time. Organised fake highjacking exercises for the right day, supplied the names of the 19 arab patsies to the media when they weren't on any of the flight manifests, brain wiped Zacharius Moesawi to ensure he confessed but didn't say anything awkward. Buried the FBI warnings, buried the urgent warnings from the French and made sure ceratin people were definitly going to be in the WTC and others weren't on the day. These are the people who actually govern the USA and very few of their names are known. The compotent quiet, apolitical officials who actually run the offices of POTUS, VPOTUS, SOD etc. Many of them are decent people just doing their job but unfortunately no enough. There is what ammounts to a religious cult which counts many hundreds of these people as well as politicians business people and academics amongst it members. It is what is known as a 'loyalty cult' and part of what that means is that its members protect the cult above all other loyalties, including their families and their country. If you really want answers, this is where you need to look. I can't give you difinitve answers, my research is onging but if you want to carry this weight too then start with this site[^]. Personally I would strongly advise staying well out of it.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Its the 11th of Sept here at the moment and I thought it would be interesting to see where everyone was on this day 6 years ago when you heard about the attacks in the US I was here[^] on a surfing trip with a mate, its was late at night and we we're sitting up waiting for some other friends to drive up from Sydney. We'd both fallen asleap while watching the telly when someone called to tell us what was happening. We saw the second aircraft crash into the building and stayed up most of the night watching the reports. It was very sureal to wake up too especially considering we were very very stoned and worn out from a long day of driving / surfing -- modified at 3:20 Tuesday 11th September, 2007 I really cant spell to save my life
I just entered my home from office when all the news channels were telecasting the furious attacks of the different planes hitting on the World Trade Center.
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage Tech Gossips
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I asked this too, and it's the main question I have, beyond the 'why'.
If you get a chance, see if you can find the History Channel show I'm talking about. I don't remember the name, but it was a 2-hour long rational comparison of conspiracy theorists along with interviews of experts and eyewitnesses. What's funny is that the group of people that authored that movie up on Google Video a while back turns out to be a few unkempt early 20-somethings crammed into a 1-bedroom apartment insisting that they know better than the numerous structural engineers, demolition experts, pilots and more who addressed each of the conspiracy claims. They tracked down people who were on the seen of the Pensylvania crash site who stated they saw body parts (the conspiracy theorists claimed that nobody did). They tracked down various people that the conspiracy theorists "quoted" and the people "quoted" said they the "quotes" were taken completely out of context. They had various engineers stating that the towers fell exactly as they would have expected. etc...etc...etc...
I've seen the History Channel show mentioned and the follow up, taking it apart, exposing the conflicts of interest and contradictions amongst the 'debunkers'. The staw men put up by the programme makers which were not in fact the arguments of the people they said they were and numerous other flaws. The very poverty of journalistic integrity in the debunking effort from the History Channel, PBS Nova (blatently incorrect CGI models), Popular Mechanics (Ignorance of basic physics) and the BBC should in itself be cause for concern to those who want to believe the official conspiracy theory. Between them the 'mistakes' of these programmes alone are enough to shred the official theory for anyone but the most blinkered. In the case of the BBC, when the guy you give the most air time to and clearly take most seriously turns out to be qualified only by being the ex-prodcuer of the X-Files, your credibility is toast before you start.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew, with views such as you have demonstrated today and on other days, it is no wonder you are, and will remain, a failed wannabe politician for a waste of time political party.
Even if such drivel were to be true, at lest I refrain from meaningless personal attacks when I have no other argument.:laugh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Which of you came up with that?
You're confusing schizophrenia with multiple personalities disorder. Schizophrenia is "the deterioration of the human personality" and is often associated with jumbled and nonsensical speech.
You're clearly an expert well above my level in such things.:)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
...These may be the motivations of the useful idiots but the motivations of the core of compotent people who keep their heads down are more difficult to fathom. These are the people who got most of the US fighter aircraft moved to Northern Canada just at the right time. Organised fake highjacking exercises for the right day, supplied the names of the 19 arab patsies to the media when they weren't on any of the flight manifests, brain wiped Zacharius Moesawi to ensure he confessed but didn't say anything awkward. Buried the FBI warnings, buried the urgent warnings from the French and made sure ceratin people were definitly going to be in the WTC and others weren't on the day. These are the people who actually govern the USA and very few of their names are known. The compotent quiet, apolitical officials who actually run the offices of POTUS, VPOTUS, SOD etc. Many of them are decent people just doing their job but unfortunately no enough. There is what ammounts to a religious cult which counts many hundreds of these people as well as politicians business people and academics amongst it members. It is what is known as a 'loyalty cult' and part of what that means is that its members protect the cult above all other loyalties, including their families and their country. If you really want answers, this is where you need to look. I can't give you difinitve answers, my research is onging but if you want to carry this weight too then start with this site[^]. Personally I would strongly advise staying well out of it.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Personally I would strongly advise staying well out of it.
Convenient... :rolleyes: Bush and company have PROVEN their incompetence too often and on too many levels for any sane individual to take this theory seriously. The Bush administration was entirely new (after Clinton left ) and had only been in office a few months. Combine that with the fact that our government is huge and diverse. There is no possible way for a conspiracy of this magnitude (under ANY administration) to even get past the first meeting without massive leaks. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't REALLY believe any of this crap and are simply trolling for entertainment. If not... you need to get some counseling before its too late.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
and smell the reality
So it's your opinion that a "smallish" group within the current US administration (POTUS, VPOTUS and the entire DOD) conspired to kill thousands of innocent civilians? 1. Why? 2. How did they manage to pull it off, considering how inept they've proven to be in ALL other areas?
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
At the Pentagon, a plane but almost certainly not the 757 that was claimed. Much more likely a painted up military drone.
:~ :rolleyes::~ I'll bite....Why is a military drone "more likely"? What happened to that 757 that left Boston that morning? How do you explain the 757 parts strewn about the Pentagon's lawn after the crash?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Either way the automated air defences were deliberately stood down on Dick C's orders. That seems to be clear.
:rolleyes::~ :rolleyes: Automated air defenses? Programmed to attack civilian airliners over the United States of America? You believe that there is such a thing?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
In Pensylvania, an unauthorised (at the highest level) shootdown seems most likely.
It was released that Cheney called Bush and Bush authorized an order to shoot down that airplane. 2 F-16's were just several minutes away from doing the doing the dirty deed...They didn't make it in time.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
It's all horrible to contemplate and much worse when you realise that senior administration figures knew it was coming and at the very least helped it along while protecting themselves and their allies.
As a supposed "Christian", what makes you exempt from declaring false witness against your neighbor?
Red Stateler wrote:
Why is a military drone "more likely"?
More likely to have pulled off the required turn, a manouver no ordinary 757 pilot, let alone a barely trained amateur, woould have been able to execute. Also more likely to be single engined. One hole, one engine. A 757 has two engines many feet apart, two holes on impact would be expected.
Red Stateler wrote:
explain the 757 parts strewn about the Pentagon's lawn after the crash
A link to a photo of these parts would be useful if one existed. I've seen hundreds of photos of the essentially unmarked lawn with a few bits of unidentifiable aluminium debris scattered about and not a few of parts that experienced ex-Boeing engineers have sworn are not present on a 757. The jury is definitely still out.
Red Stateler wrote:
Automated air defenses?
You're not aware of the restricted aircraft zone around the Pentagon? That only military aircraft with permission can fly thorugh it or that even the poor old Serbs had automated air defences back when US aircraft had to bomb from 15000 feet plus to avoid them. At least that was the excuse the Pentagon gave at the time. Do you think the Pentagon is undefended?
Red Stateler wrote:
2 F-16's were just several minutes away from doing the doing the dirty deed...They didn't make it in time.
I know that's what was released but the time line was wrong (Probably to protect the pilots involved). The F-16's did have time to get there before the order was given.
Red Stateler wrote:
As a supposed "Christian", what makes you exempt from declaring false witness against your neighbor?
Nothing!
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
OK, the big question would be, what happened to the plane full of people that DIDN'T fly into the WTC ? Well, there were two. Where are they, and where are the people ?
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Personally I would strongly advise staying well out of it.
Convenient... :rolleyes: Bush and company have PROVEN their incompetence too often and on too many levels for any sane individual to take this theory seriously. The Bush administration was entirely new (after Clinton left ) and had only been in office a few months. Combine that with the fact that our government is huge and diverse. There is no possible way for a conspiracy of this magnitude (under ANY administration) to even get past the first meeting without massive leaks. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't REALLY believe any of this crap and are simply trolling for entertainment. If not... you need to get some counseling before its too late.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
The Bush administration was entirely new (after Clinton left )
FYI just check out David Gergen. There's a nice video of him being caught by Alex Jones that's knocking around. Cult member and advisor to no less than 4 presidents, both D & R. If you really believe the statement that I quoted then I am certainly not the only one who needs help.:laugh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
But, are they more than 1% likely
Yes, simply because cutting thick steel columns is difficult and thermite is one of the few ways to do it. It was done, so if not thermite then how? Jet fuel doesn't cut it ( pun intended ). If you're a scientist then check Dr. Stephen Jones' analysis. His metalurgy conclusion is that evidence for thermate is conclusive. I'm certainly not qualified to argue.
Christian Graus wrote:
the need of some people to find conspiracy has as it's most fatal flaw, the fact that I've yet to hear a motive that is plausible for the US government to attack it's own members, on it's own soil.
If being able to ram through the Patriot act without it being read, carry out the already planned war on Iraq, get the Unocal pipeline through Afghanistan and cream off billions in war profiteering through Haliburton and the Carlyle group, not to mention gaurenteeing W's re-election as a War President is not enough motivation then I don't know what is. Perhaps being able to trash to the Constitution, legalize torture and imprison people wihtout trial. If you or I were both evil and insane maybe we'd value being able to do such things with impunity. TBC...
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
I didn't think they were cut. Everything I've read indicates the falling of the towers was completely believable. The world is full of experts capable of creating arguments for things they already believe. I have no doubt the war on Iraq was planned, and that they were looking for a way to pursue it. I don't believe they decided to generate that way, themselves.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
I've seen the History Channel show mentioned and the follow up, taking it apart, exposing the conflicts of interest and contradictions amongst the 'debunkers'. The staw men put up by the programme makers which were not in fact the arguments of the people they said they were and numerous other flaws. The very poverty of journalistic integrity in the debunking effort from the History Channel, PBS Nova (blatently incorrect CGI models), Popular Mechanics (Ignorance of basic physics) and the BBC should in itself be cause for concern to those who want to believe the official conspiracy theory. Between them the 'mistakes' of these programmes alone are enough to shred the official theory for anyone but the most blinkered. In the case of the BBC, when the guy you give the most air time to and clearly take most seriously turns out to be qualified only by being the ex-prodcuer of the X-Files, your credibility is toast before you start.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I've seen the History Channel show mentioned and the follow up, taking it apart, exposing the conflicts of interest and contradictions amongst the 'debunkers'. The staw men put up by the programme makers which were not in fact the arguments of the people they said they were and numerous other flaws. The very poverty of journalistic integrity in the debunking effort from the History Channel, PBS Nova (blatently incorrect CGI models), Popular Mechanics (Ignorance of basic physics) and the BBC should in itself be cause for concern to those who want to believe the official conspiracy theory. Between them the 'mistakes' of these programmes alone are enough to shred the official theory for anyone but the most blinkered. In the case of the BBC, when the guy you give the most air time to and clearly take most seriously turns out to be qualified only by being the ex-prodcuer of the X-Files, your credibility is toast before you start.
The fundamental problem with all of the "conspiracy" theories on this and other subjects is that the perpetrators of these myths have absolutely no respect for any science, eyewitness accounts, evidence or corroboration thereof. They often cite, but fail to follow up on, their "sources". When they present an "expert", that "expert" is typically not well respected or not an "expert" at all. They fail to seek multiple opinions to corroberate their "experts". As the History Channel pointed out, when one set of conspiracy theories is amply demonstrated to be false, the theory is simply changed. The goal is predetermined in the minds of the conspiracy theorists, and the means are frequently modified, without evidence, to support those ends. Those that they cannot discredit (which are most) are claimed to be "in on it" ("conflicts of interests", as you put it). Quite frankly, I respect the opinions of those who have earned their doctorates in various engineering disciplines much more so than some 23-year-old, pretentious graphic designer. When it comes to your opinions...Put up or shut up. Stop rambling on like a schizophrenic and provide real, tangible evidence (something you apparently don't require) to support your point.
-
Even if such drivel were to be true, at lest I refrain from meaningless personal attacks when I have no other argument.:laugh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Terribly sorry you feel offended. With the many thousands who have lost their lives on that fateful day and since in Afghanistan, Madrid, London and other places due to terrorism, I suspect that friends and families alike probably feel offended by these conspiracy theories.
Last modified: 38mins after originally posted --
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Why is a military drone "more likely"?
More likely to have pulled off the required turn, a manouver no ordinary 757 pilot, let alone a barely trained amateur, woould have been able to execute. Also more likely to be single engined. One hole, one engine. A 757 has two engines many feet apart, two holes on impact would be expected.
Red Stateler wrote:
explain the 757 parts strewn about the Pentagon's lawn after the crash
A link to a photo of these parts would be useful if one existed. I've seen hundreds of photos of the essentially unmarked lawn with a few bits of unidentifiable aluminium debris scattered about and not a few of parts that experienced ex-Boeing engineers have sworn are not present on a 757. The jury is definitely still out.
Red Stateler wrote:
Automated air defenses?
You're not aware of the restricted aircraft zone around the Pentagon? That only military aircraft with permission can fly thorugh it or that even the poor old Serbs had automated air defences back when US aircraft had to bomb from 15000 feet plus to avoid them. At least that was the excuse the Pentagon gave at the time. Do you think the Pentagon is undefended?
Red Stateler wrote:
2 F-16's were just several minutes away from doing the doing the dirty deed...They didn't make it in time.
I know that's what was released but the time line was wrong (Probably to protect the pilots involved). The F-16's did have time to get there before the order was given.
Red Stateler wrote:
As a supposed "Christian", what makes you exempt from declaring false witness against your neighbor?
Nothing!
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
More likely to have pulled off the required turn, a manouver no ordinary 757 pilot, let alone a barely trained amateur, woould have been able to execute. Also more likely to be single engined. One hole, one engine. A 757 has two engines many feet apart, two holes on impact would be expected.
The pilots and structural engineers interviewed disagree with you. What are your qualifications? If you have none, can you cite somebody who is qualified?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
A link to a photo of these parts would be useful if one existed. I've seen hundreds of photos of the essentially unmarked lawn with a few bits of unidentifiable aluminium debris scattered about and not a few of parts that experienced ex-Boeing engineers have sworn are not present on a 757. The jury is definitely still out.
If you saw the History Channel special, then you would have seen parts with the American Airlines logo strewn across the lawn with the Pentagon directly behind it. Those who cleaned up the mess that they interviewed also stated that there was debris. In the end, however, a liquified mass of aluminum doesn't leave much behind.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You're not aware of the restricted aircraft zone around the Pentagon? That only military aircraft with permission can fly thorugh it or that even the poor old Serbs had automated air defences back when US aircraft had to bomb from 15000 feet plus to avoid them. At least that was the excuse the Pentagon gave at the time. Do you think the Pentagon is undefended?
The Pentagon was certainly not defended with anti-aircraft missles that would target civilian aircraft overhead. Nor did they have any permission at that time to shoot down any such aircraft even if they did. It was a time of peace. Aircraft regularly enter restricted areas by mistake. They are generally contacted and told to divert their course. This particular airplane wasn't responding to those requests. I wonder why...
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I know that's what was released but the time line was wrong (Probably to protect the pilots involved). The F-16's did have time to get there before the order was given.
You make lots of statements without backing them up. At the time, NORAD was set up to intercept FOREIGN aircraft. Only a few fighter jets were combat ready