[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[SOMERLED]

They are made for use in war zones and potentially hostile areas - not in 'safe' home air space.

Where has the money gone? Overseas. The vast majority of military equipment is in some other country. At home, we never felt a need for missile defenses, anti-aircraft guns, and the like. I was in the military up to October of '02, and on some of the most important military bases in the U.S. None of them even had standing missile defences or anti-aircraft weapons. If the U.S. were ever directly attacked by any enemy at all (using aircract), we were sitting ducks - because we always believed, up to 9/11, that no nation anywhere would be so stupid as to attack a major nuclear superpower.

We were wrong.

Needless to say, however, there were no anti-aircraft weapons (in any active posture) around the Pentagon, or Washington, D.C., or Ft. Bragg, or Ft. Sill, or Ft. Stewart, or McDill Air Base... and so on and so forth. There were, on occasion, active weapons on a few bases - during controlled live-fire exercises, or using mock weapons during field training.

So there you go - your 'rings of steel' nonsense shot to hell. Got anything better?

Your post puts me in mind of a Condoleeza Rice statement.
There is probably more evidence of 'pre knowledge' than any other issue with regard to 9/11. I've been looking for a photo of airliners crashed onto the Pentagon that's 40 or so years old. I found this, but there's so much more,


• 1991 - The Port Authority warns that the WTC is a terrorist target and security consulting firm Securacom is informed.



In the Matter of World Trade Center Bombing Litigation.

"In 1991, because of the Gulf War and the increased risk of terrorism to United States targets, the Port Authority commissioned another security consulting firm, Burns and Roe Securacom, to prepare reports. Securacom was told by the Port Authority that the WTC was a terrorist target, and the report would help it plan its capital expenditures to maintain its competitive status with nearby buildings that offered more advanced security features." - courts.state.ny.us (01/20/04)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• 1993 - U.S. ignored a warning by a military advisor that the Pentagon and White House were vulnerable to attack from hijacked jets.

5:22:25 AM
"The American Government was warned eight years ago that the Pentagon and White House were vulnerable to attack from hijacked jets, a military adviser has claimed.
Dr Marvin Cetron said he prepared a 250-page report for the US intelligence agencies in 1993 which detailed his concerns but it was ignored.
‘‘I said look, you’ve got a major problem here with aircraft, they could hit the White House or the Pentagon it’s a simple matter of coming in and making a left turn at the Washington Monument and running directly into the White House, or a right turn and going into the Pentagon,’’ Dr Cetron said.
He added: ‘‘They understood and they ignored it, they took it out of the final draft.’’
Republican Senator Wayne Allard, a member of the US administration’s armed forces committee, told Newsnight he was part of various hearings where the suggestion of possible attacks from hijacked jets were made.
He said the warnings were similar to the events on Tuesday which saw four planes hijacked to deadly effect, but not exactly the same.’’ - TCM Breaking News (09/13/01)

There seems to be a collective opinion on here that no precautions existed prior to 9/11. This is just plain incorrect.

 

[SOMERLED]

Common sense is much debated here. There is some consensus that physical evidence and scientific studies trump everything. There is also a high value placed on logic.

It is agreed that common sense doesn't cover physics or scientific issues. It's good for crossing the street. It's a good antidote to philosophical skepticism, which is quite different from scientific skepticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

btw, if you can't have a reasonable conversation with Arkan_Wolfshade, you can't have a reasonable conversation with anyone.



I think he means "moderated".

What do you make of the word 'coincidence'.
Let me progress at some pace beyond pedestrian.
The police do not believe in coincidence. This can best be explained by using the example of the jewel thief staying in town over the weekend.
If a known jewel thief is staying in town over the weekend and the local jewellers gets robbed, would you expect the local police to write that off as just coincidence and do nothing?
I can assure you that the police would do no such thing.
That jewel thief would be in and gone over with a fine toothed comb in a New York minute.
How come the coincidences around 9/11 haven't been treated the same way?

 

[SOMERLED]

Heaven forbid. Otherwise you'd have to answer our points.



The only reason we can't proceed is because you have no idea what you're talking about.



Common sense tells you the Earth is flat and that heavier objects fall faster. Common sense is also wrong, and for some reason NO ONE ever answers this point.

Does this post mean that you maintain that common sense is no longer a consideration?

 

[SOMERLED]

Common sense is much debated here. There is some consensus that physical evidence and scientific studies trump everything. There is also a high value placed on logic.

It is agreed that common sense doesn't cover physics or scientific issues. It's good for crossing the street. It's a good antidote to philosophical skepticism, which is quite different from scientific skepticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

btw, if you can't have a reasonable conversation with Arkan_Wolfshade, you can't have a reasonable conversation with anyone.



I think he means "moderated".

I'm doing my best to have a reasonable conversatiohn with all involved in this thread. Furthermore, I am acting in good faith. Let me ask you, in all the years I presume that you have been au fait with 9/11, do you truly believe the official account?

 

[SOMERLED]

To both: The thread's particpents.

Mu. No one individual, aside from a mod/admin (modmin?), has the power to stop the thread from going in whatever direction it goes.

As I have already explained, more than once, in this thread; the visual evidence is the simplest starting point. Either the plane in the visual records does not match UA Flight 175, or it does match/is indeterminate. By resolving the most elementary of issues, it provides direction for what evidence/talking-points should be addressed next. You keep trying to move on to the 'why' of the plane being faked rather than addressing the fact that we do not agree 'that' it was faked.


"He can be taught!" You made the claim, you substantiate it. I would think you'd be all over this if it were as obvious as you imply it to be.

It must be objective in nature, the results of the analysis must be reproducible, and the evidence should lead to the answer. Present it already. If you show us and we go, "Wow, that doesn't appear to be UA Flight 175 after all" then we can go on to "What is it?". As it stands, your claims are based upon multiple begging the question logical fallacies and don't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

"Common" sense says the world is flat, that the Sun circles the Earth, and that Pardalis' favorite animal is a member of the rodent family. All of which are incorrect.

Here is the JT9D

Here is the CFM 56

They are very different and easily identifiable.
Here is the engine that powered the attack plane,

It is obviously a CFM 56 and equally obviously not a JT9D.

 

[SOMERLED]

Please explain how the Pentagon, a large office building, is the safest place in the world.

Because the US spends more money on defence than all the other countries in the world put together and then some.
Because the notion of any threat to US security is farcical.
Because moslems cleary are innocent of any involvement in 9/11, except as the odd patsy.
Because it is patently obvious to all of the rest of the world and perhaps now 80% of americans, that the problems that afflict the USA are homegrown.
Because the only 'war' that the warmongers can pull out of the hat, is a war that they manufactured and still manufacture.
Because Bush declared "Mission Accomplished", quite some time ago.
Mission Accomplished = war over.
What now remains is a police action, with regard to Iraqis fighting among themselves.
As soon as we clear off, whenever we clear off, they will immediately decide their own destiny.
Because this whole War on Terror baloney is a creation of neocon/NWO/call them what you will warmongers.
Because in the event of a real war, nothing would cross the american coastline, never mind get anywhere near the Pentagon roof.
Because being in a deckchair up there, I would be able to enjoy the weather and the view.

 

[SOMERLED]

Here is the JT9D
[qimg]http://www.answers.com/topic/pratt-whitney-jt9d[/qimg]
Here is the CFM 56
[qimg]http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/cfm56/index.html[/qimg]
They are very different and easily identifiable.
Here is the engine that powered the attack plane,
[qimg]http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengine1.htm[/qimg]
It is obviously a CFM 56 and equally obviously not a JT9D.

That didn't work. I'll get there.
For now this will have to suffice,
Here is the JT9D
http://www.answers.com/topic/pratt-whitney-jt9d
Here is the CFM 56
http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/cfm56/index.html
They are very different and easily identifiable.
Here is the engine that powered the attack plane,
http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengine1.htm
It is obviously a CFM 56 and equally obviously not a JT9D.

 

[MRC_Hans]

That didn't work. I'll get there.
For now this will have to suffice,
Here is the JT9D
http://www.answers.com/topic/pratt-whitney-jt9d
Here is the CFM 56
http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/cfm56/index.html
They are very different and easily identifiable.
Here is the engine that powered the attack plane,
http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengine1.htm
It is obviously a CFM 56 and equally obviously not a JT9D.

I'm sorry, I fail to see any obvoious details that can uniquely identify the engine. There are similarities with both, as can be exected, since all modern jet ingines are built in a more or less similar way. I do notice that the size of the wreckage seems to fit the JT9D better.

Hans

 

[SOMERLED]

I'm sorry, I fail to see any obvoious details that can uniquely identify the engine. There are similarities with both, as can be exected, since all modern jet ingines are built in a more or less similar way. I do notice that the size of the wreckage seems to fit the JT9D better.

Hans

If you look at the far end of the JT9D, the fan box or the blade box, whatever it's called, it's about a foot deep.
Whereas the CFM56 is a good yard deep.
The damaged engine is a lot closer to a yard deep. It is certainly so deep that it can't possibly be a JT9D.
You might be able to argue that it isn't a CFM56. But it most certainly is not a JT9D, most definately not.
It follows that the attack plane was not 175.

 

[MortFurd]

Because the US spends more money on defence than all the other countries in the world put together and then some.

Probably correct. I'm not going to go hunting numbers.

Because the notion of any threat to US security is farcical.

Obviously not, since the towers were attacked in 1991 and destroyed in 2001.

Because moslems cleary are innocent of any involvement in 9/11, except as the odd patsy.

In your fantasy world, perhaps. 19 Terrorist's activities were traced and documented once their actions became known. After the fact, unfortunately.

Because it is patently obvious to all of the rest of the world and perhaps now 80% of americans, that the problems that afflict the USA are homegrown.

The US has enough of its own problems, that's true. Incompetent, bumbling, lying politicians are hell. As are political activists who have a reality disconnect and would rather chase fantasies than try to see that better politicians get elected and that bad ones get chucked out. Looking squarely at Mr. Kirkman, with all of his "evidence" that he's done nothing useful with.

Because the only 'war' that the warmongers can pull out of the hat, is a war that they manufactured and still manufacture.

Yeah, that was a picked fight in Iraq. Still, ask the average Iraqi if he'd rather have Saddam in power, or the US trying to help them build their own peace.

Because Bush declared "Mission Accomplished", quite some time ago.
Mission Accomplished = war over.
What now remains is a police action, with regard to Iraqis fighting among themselves.

Mostly foreign agitators playing "lets you and him fight." And, admittedly, Iraq internal problems. There's history and hate there that goes back a long ways, and that Saddam kept under check by suppressing and opressing everybody.

As soon as we clear off, whenever we clear off, they will immediately decide their own destiny.

More likely fall back under the influence of military dictatorship again.

Because this whole War on Terror baloney is a creation of neocon/NWO/call them what you will warmongers.

Overblown to some extent, yes. You can't fight terrorists with batallions - though you might need them to stop a particular attack. Stopping terrorists requires information on who is operating where so that they can be stopped. Long term, though, it requires fixing the problems that provide a breeding ground for hatred and hopelessness. That's hunger and poverty, and oppression. Things you've never experienced like the people in Iraq have experienced it.

Because in the event of a real war, nothing would cross the american coastline, never mind get anywhere near the Pentagon roof.

Terrorism isn't the same as a war. If there were a declared war with an enemy capable of launching an air attack against the US, then I expect there'd also be all out combat and missile batteries in more places than just the Pentagon and the Whitehouse.

Because being in a deckchair up there, I would be able to enjoy the weather and the view.

If there were a war serious enough that the Pentagon was protected night and day by missile batteries and 24/7 fighter protection, you would either have been drafted, run out of the country to avoid the draft, in prison for draft dodging, possibly dead some battle or other after you were drafted, or (unlikely) fighting to protect your homeland. You might also be too old for combat and therefore serving in some other capability. At any rate, you would not be lounging around on top of the Pentagon. Under those conditions, you might even have been shot for trying to take your lounge chair onto the Pentagon.

 

[MortFurd]

If you look at the far end of the JT9D, the fan box or the blade box, whatever it's called, it's about a foot deep.
Whereas the CFM56 is a good yard deep.
The damaged engine is a lot closer to a yard deep. It is certainly so deep that it can't possibly be a JT9D.
You might be able to argue that it isn't a CFM56. But it most certainly is not a JT9D, most definately not.
It follows that the attack plane was not 175.

The "damaged" engine (smashed flat would be more like it) is close to a yard total length, whereas the CFM56 and the JT9D are both around 11 feet in length. You've got a piece of an engine and it's been smashed flat. You'll pardon me if I don't assume you have the familiarity with engines it would take to tell them apart. I'll place more trust in the people who work with such things, and who could check part numbers from the pieces.

The conspirators were apparently (to follow your line of argument) sure enough about the total destruction of the aircraft that they didn't bother to use an attack aircraft of the same type as flight 175. That or so incompetent that the question never occured to them.

 

[MRC_Hans]

If you look at the far end of the JT9D, the fan box or the blade box, whatever it's called, it's about a foot deep.
Whereas the CFM56 is a good yard deep.
The damaged engine is a lot closer to a yard deep. It is certainly so deep that it can't possibly be a JT9D.
You might be able to argue that it isn't a CFM56. But it most certainly is not a JT9D, most definately not.
It follows that the attack plane was not 175.

As MortFurd already mentioned, the wreckage is about a yard all in all, and in such a condidion that you cannot infer its original shape, especially not from photos.

APART FROM PHOTOS, do you have any evidence for the identity of the engine found in the street on New York?

What is needed is positive ID of recognizeable parts.

Hans

 

[twinstead]

Because the US spends more money on defence than all the other countries in the world put together and then some.
Because the notion of any threat to US security is farcical.
Because moslems cleary are innocent of any involvement in 9/11, except as the odd patsy.
Because it is patently obvious to all of the rest of the world and perhaps now 80% of americans, that the problems that afflict the USA are homegrown.
Because the only 'war' that the warmongers can pull out of the hat, is a war that they manufactured and still manufacture.
Because Bush declared "Mission Accomplished", quite some time ago.
Mission Accomplished = war over.
What now remains is a police action, with regard to Iraqis fighting among themselves.
As soon as we clear off, whenever we clear off, they will immediately decide their own destiny.
Because this whole War on Terror baloney is a creation of neocon/NWO/call them what you will warmongers.
Because in the event of a real war, nothing would cross the american coastline, never mind get anywhere near the Pentagon roof.
Because being in a deckchair up there, I would be able to enjoy the weather and the view.

This is worst case of circular reasoning I've EVER seen.

Tell me exactly what your definition of a 'war' is.

 

[Belz...]

The police do not believe in coincidence.

How come the coincidences around 9/11 haven't been treated the same way?

Because there ARE coincidences. Millions of them, every day.

Does this post mean that you maintain that common sense is no longer a consideration?

Your common sense is useless when trying to understand things that are, by definition, counter-intuitive. Do you think common sense can help you understand general relativity ?

Because the US spends more money on defence than all the other countries in the world put together and then some.

The Pentagon is an OFFICE BUILDING. Why the hell would it have missile defenses on it when there's a civilian airport just a few seconds away ?

Because moslems cleary are innocent of any involvement in 9/11, except as the odd patsy.

The evidence is overwhelmingly against extremist terrorists.

Because it is patently obvious to all of the rest of the world and perhaps now 80% of americans, that the problems that afflict the USA are homegrown.

Argument from incredulity.

Because the only 'war' that the warmongers can pull out of the hat, is a war that they manufactured and still manufacture.

That's a deeply paranoid statement.

Because this whole War on Terror baloney is a creation of neocon/NWO/call them what you will warmongers.

Please explain what this "NWO" is.

Because in the event of a real war, nothing would cross the american coastline, never mind get anywhere near the Pentagon roof.

Except these planes didn't CROSS the american coastline, did they ?

 

[SOMERLED]

The "damaged" engine (smashed flat would be more like it) is close to a yard total length, whereas the CFM56 and the JT9D are both around 11 feet in length. You've got a piece of an engine and it's been smashed flat. You'll pardon me if I don't assume you have the familiarity with engines it would take to tell them apart. I'll place more trust in the people who work with such things, and who could check part numbers from the pieces.

The conspirators were apparently (to follow your line of argument) sure enough about the total destruction of the aircraft that they didn't bother to use an attack aircraft of the same type as flight 175. That or so incompetent that the question never occured to them.

Going off all the other mistakes that the genuine NWO perpetrators made, I would settle on incompetent, tinged with arrogance.

 

[SOMERLED]

As MortFurd already mentioned, the wreckage is about a yard all in all, and in such a condidion that you cannot infer its original shape, especially not from photos.

APART FROM PHOTOS, do you have any evidence for the identity of the engine found in the street on New York?

What is needed is positive ID of recognizeable parts.

Hans

Positive ID for you.
The good three foot width of the wrecked engine, tells me it could not possibly be originally the one foot depth that the engine that powered 175 was. It can't grow a couple of feet, whilst the rest of it gets squashed.
It can't grow a couple of feet at all.

 

[SOMERLED]

This is worst case of circular reasoning I've EVER seen.

Tell me exactly what your definition of a 'war' is.

An armed conflict between two or more countries.
A failure of politics and politicians
I define politics as 'talking'. I define politicians as 'talkers'.
War is therefore a failure of the 'talkers'.
It is also a favoured tool of moneylenders.
Because they lend money for bullets whilst the war is on and then money for bricks to rebuild when the war is over.
War should be the very last resort, because the deaths of young people in the armies is assured.
How anyone can justify declaring war on a country or a people that are no threat should be criminal behaviour.

 

[Brainache]

Positive ID for you.
The good three foot width of the wrecked engine, tells me it could not possibly be originally the one foot depth that the engine that powered 175 was. It can't grow a couple of feet, whilst the rest of it gets squashed.
It can't grow a couple of feet at all.

Did you miss the part of the thread where people explained to you that a CFM54 is smaller than a JT9d? Hell I don't even know if I got the names right, but I distinctly recall seeing it stated that the engine you think it is couldn't even power a 767 let alone a big armored version of a 767.

 

[Brainache]

An armed conflict between two or more countries.
A failure of politics and politicians
I define politics as 'talking'. I define politicians as 'talkers'.
War is therefore a failure of the 'talkers'.
It is also a favoured tool of moneylenders.
Because they lend money for bullets whilst the war is on and then money for bricks to rebuild when the war is over.
War should be the very last resort, because the deaths of young people in the armies is assured.
How anyone can justify declaring war on a country or a people that are no threat should be criminal behaviour.

Well we all hate war and no one wants to see people profiting from wars, but I really don't see how you can pin this one on Warren Buffet.

 

[twinstead]

An armed conflict between two or more countries.
A failure of politics and politicians
I define politics as 'talking'. I define politicians as 'talkers'.
War is therefore a failure of the 'talkers'.
It is also a favoured tool of moneylenders.
Because they lend money for bullets whilst the war is on and then money for bricks to rebuild when the war is over.
War should be the very last resort, because the deaths of young people in the armies is assured.
How anyone can justify declaring war on a country or a people that are no threat should be criminal behaviour.

So by your very definition, even if you are wrong and Islamic extremists are to blame, it isn't a war either.

It is NOT up to you to decide what is a threat or isn't a threat. You are just some ideologue that wouldn't recognize a threat if it bit you. And, just because YOU don't think there is a threat doesn't mean there isn't.

So, how do you manage a situation that some people perceive as a serious threat and some don't? Are we just supposed to sit back and 'take it' because some ideologically-bent minority doesn't believe that Islamic extremism is a threat?

What if YOU felt seriously threatened, had good evidence to feel that way, but a small group of people you thought were oblivious to it told you to 'chill'?

So, how do you define schizophrenia?