[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[SOMERLED]

No, Malcolm, that is not what I am saying. It's what you desperately want to believe, I know, but it's not what I'm saying. Let me re-pose my question that you've ignored about the astronomical improbability, under your assumptions, of five key Global Hawk workers' having been aboard the hijacked planes. Almost anyone with a mathematics degree could calculate this--why haven't any mathematicians around the world spoken out about this? Is it because they're all being intimidated by the Men in Black, or is it because your assumptions are hopelessly flawed, and the fact of there have been one DCMA and four Raytheon employees on the flight isn't such an improbable coincidence after all?

On a related question, when I go and ask my two physics professors whether an ordinary airliner could have penetrated the walls of the World Trade Center towers, and they say "yes," will it be because they're incompetent? Or because they've been bought off? We are a regional campus of Purdue University--maybe we're all in on the conspiracy. Or could it be because it's true, and you simply don't understand the physics that explains why it's true?

Please respond to both questions.

My pleasure,
Had I still been working, I would probably be in favour of bombing Iran back into the stone age. That would be because my only source of 'news' would be the MSM (BBC) and I never was one to really listen anyway.
In other words, all these mathematicians etc, in fact most anybody working really, is too busy to find the time.
I've only just found this out and I've been aware of the truth for a good five months now.
I'm sure most people don't need to go to any great depths, such as poring over passenger lists, to realise the truth. In a backhanded way it's a compliment to you deniers, otherwise this 'smoking gun' would not have surfaced.
On a related point, I'm still working out how an obviously intelligent person such as yourself, can allow some other consideration to hold sway over the mass murder of innocent office workers.
Before I came on this forum. I was advocating that people who are au fait and deniers, should be looked at very closely as accessories after the fact. Having had a look at some other threads on this forum, I'm thinking now of 'somebody Walrus', I read an exchange where the walrus was persuaded into being a denier. At the moment, I'm resigning myself to the possibility that otherwise rational people can be persuaded into becoming deniers. I'm thinking now of scientists who are educated into a world of absolutes, if it's guaranteed to be true every time, then it's a law - in your language.
But in the language of the legal profession, things are very different.
Bias for example need only be a possibility. If you are on a 'selection' panel and your brother appears before it, you would have to step down because of the POSSIBILITY of bias and the whole proceedings being scrapped. So you see, where I come from, absolute proof is for the lab, not the courtroom. With me, when I have enough pieces, I make a hat and if the hat fits, I'll make somebody wear it.
In conclusion, maths teachers etc are not up in arms, because the don't know. I'll be doing what I can to alter that directly.
I have no difficulty with an aitliner entering one of the twins. The designer himself explains how the buildings were designed to behave a bit like a net curtain.
My difficulty is the ease with which the planes just slid in. There is no way on earth a wing would slice into a tower at floor level, none. It would be no different than a plane hitting a pier front on with a wing and slicing the pier in half.
I hit on the military bit after realising that a USAF fighter just sliced through cable car cables with a wing and carried on oblivious, while a cable car full of skiers were dropped to their deaths.
There was only 12 1/2 feet between the floors. Something had to be done to make sure all the plane went in, including the wings.
I hope this is a comprehensive enough answer. I will refrain from commenting about Purdue, save to say I am aware of their piece which I believe has since been 'debunked'.

 

[SOMERLED]

Sorry Malcolm, but you are WRONG. A plane hit the pentagon, & I have talked with a person who was there, who saw the carnage first hand & held the parts in his hands. I have heard Col. Bidlack's description of that hellish event & will stand by him 100%. Are you calling Col. Bidlack a Liar?

Kindly refer me to Col Bidlacks account. Perhaps he has some news of these pesky engines and wings, I can't find them anywhere.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Malcolm, I posed several questions to you regarding the 22 points in your original post. You have failed to address any of them. Kindly do so.

Malcolm, now that you have conclusively demonstrated your dishonesty and intellectual laziness, I think this would be a good time to revisit you original claims. . . .

4.
The law requires that the passengers on any flight, have the flight crew present themselves to the passengers, by standing by the entrance door. This is to reassure the passengers, that the crew are not hung over or worse.

5.
No flight crew by the door = no flight.

Here is a link to the Federal Aviation Administration regulations governing the operation of airlines carrying more than 10 passengers per aircraft (14 CFR Part 121). This version was current as of 1999. Please indicated the section where flight crew members are required to present themselves to passengers by standing at "the" door.

7.
Offutt AFB, is a joint civilian/military installation.

According to airport information from airnav.com, Offutt's average air traffic is 168 flights a day, all military. Please provide evidence that there was any civilian use of Offutt's air facilities on or near September 11, 2001.

8.
Boeing and Raytheon were there.

In what capacity? Did they have maintenance technicians at the base? Maintenance or testing facilities? Please elaborate. . . .

11.
Any commander of an Air Force Base who closed his airport for ‘civilian’ reasons during massive war games, would face disciplinary action.

Uninformed speculation. Further, what about a base commander "who closed his [or her] airport" during important war games in order to prepare for a possible emergency landing by a stricken civilian airliner? Would that commander face disciplinary action? According to your statement, he or she would. . . .

14.
Private civilian executive jets began arriving at dawn on 9/11, because of a celebrity golf tournament that day.

Do you have any evidence that these jets actually landed at Offutt, rather than Omaha's Eppley Airfield, which is only 11 miles away, and where Warren Buffett's jet fleet was based? Further, even if this did happen, what evidence do you have that the airport was closed to military flights at any point?

15.
Warren Buffet was persuaded out of retirement to host one last celebrity golf tournament.

Buffett had hosted the tournament every year for the previous several years. Please provide evidence that he was "persuaded out of retirement," rather than 2001's just being the last year he planned to participate. . . .

22.
All take offs from Offutt, for both Northern Vigilance, Vigilant warrior and any other reason, would have to be during the night of 9/10 – 9/11.

Yet again, please provide evidence that any civilian aircraft landed at Offutt on September 11, 2001, and also any evidence that the airport was closed to military traffic at any time that day.

 

[SOMERLED]

"Spades"

Trouble with your message is that you simply have not shown any proof at all that it was an "inside job". Punishing people without proof of guilt is a hallmark of a dictatorial system. Determining guilt with out a trial is a hallmark of a repressive system of governance.

I shudder to think of life under any system that you might wish for.

If it were a dictatorship, things would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.
Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNo0_klKzis

 

[SOMERLED]

Kindly ANSWER post 2548.

There is a difference between perceiving or imagining a threat or insult from someone miles away, someone or something that you can't smell, see or hear and being startled by something close at hand.

 

[lapman]

My pleasure,
My difficulty is the ease with which the planes just slid in. There is no way on earth a wing would slice into a tower at floor level, none. It would be no different than a plane hitting a pier front on with a wing and slicing the pier in half.

It obviously didn't just "slide in." The huge fuel-air explosion shows that the wings didn't last very long at all. They were going too fast and had too much momentum for the outer wall to stop them, yet the explosion occurred when they were just a few feet into the building. The only part of the wing that would have caused damage to the floor structure is the main spar. Remember, it has to be able to support several times the full weight of the aircraft.

I hit on the military bit after realising that a USAF fighter just sliced through cable car cables with a wing and carried on oblivious, while a cable car full of skiers were dropped to their deaths.

This show that a wing can cut through steel without too much trouble when going fast enough.

There was only 12 1/2 feet between the floors. Something had to be done to make sure all the plane went in, including the wings.

See above.

I hope this is a comprehensive enough answer. I will refrain from commenting about Purdue, save to say I am aware of their piece which I believe has since been 'debunked'.

Debunked where?

 

[A W Smith]

Thank you for that. Perhaps you could continue in the same vein with regard to how come the pentagon jet went through 12 or so such walls and left an opened book on a stool and the book was not even charred. Whilst the WTC plane burnt everything to ash?
I am handicapped by being unable to put up a photo. I keep trying but obviously, I'm doing something wrong. You wouldn't happen to have a photo of the Pentagon facade before the collapse would you ?
It's just that I'm interested in what happened to the engines and the wings.

What? 12 or so such walls? how did you come up with that? are you not aware that in the area and level the plane impacted the first three rings were of an open floor plan and connected with lower roofs between the rings separating them? are you also aware the exit hole wall need not be blast resistant simply because there was no practical way to drive a truck bomb or similar device from within the rings of the pentagon?

And onto the unburned bible on a stool story. did you not see the millions of individual un-scorched papers falling to the streets of Manhattan from the WTC towers when the planes hit?

OK thats two more beatings you got kirkman.

 

[jaydeehess]

My message is that 9/11 was an inside job and justice is going to be served in the matter, in spages(sic)

If it were a dictatorship, things would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.
Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNo0_klKzis

,,, and what makes your call for extra-judicial and severe punishment better or more just than anyone else's malcolm?

 

[Myriad]

There is a difference between perceiving or imagining a threat or insult from someone miles away, someone or something that you can't smell, see or hear and being startled by something close at hand.

If you can perceive a threat or insult that you cannot see, hear, smell, or feel, from someone miles away, you can have a million dollars (aka loadsa dosh) of the Randi Foundation's money. I suggest you apply for it (after testing yourself to make sure you really do have this ability); that way you can fulfill your promise to donate $1000 to charity.

However, if you're talking about perceiving a remote threat, real or otherwise, from miles away that you can see or hear (such as a distant explosion, or an image transmitted by television) -- my dogs can do that.

Imagining something is no challenge for anyone. If I hold out my hand in a certain way, my dogs imagine a dog biscuit that they cannot possibly see, hear, or smell because it's not there. So what?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[SOMERLED]

Malcolm, I posed several questions to you regarding the 22 points in your original post. You have failed to address any of them. Kindly do so.

I hope this is a better reply than the last one.
This is the only website I can recollect.
http://911review.org/brad.com/team8plus/Offutt _AFB_Buffett.html
I haven't kept the best records, but then I wasn't expecting to have to reference everything.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Sheesh Malcolm, I came to JREF arguing on the twoofer side. I'm not on the twoofer side any more, wanna know why?

 

[Belz...]

There is a difference between perceiving or imagining a threat or insult from someone miles away, someone or something that you can't smell, see or hear and being startled by something close at hand.

No, there isn't. The animal in question has to react quickly. Does it stay there and keep on grazing, or flee ? Fleeing is the most "rational" answer because there's no penalty for being wrong and surviving.

The point is, in both cases a perceived threat is non-existent. That's what you said at first, and now you're trying to make distinct sub-categories to make me wrong. That's called moving the goalposts, by the way.

On a related point, I'm still working out how an obviously intelligent person such as yourself, can allow some other consideration to hold sway over the mass murder of innocent office workers.

Do you have an actual argument, or are you just trying to appeal to emotions, here ?

My difficulty is the ease with which the planes just slid in. There is no way on earth a wing would slice into a tower at floor level, none. It would be no different than a plane hitting a pier front on with a wing and slicing the pier in half.

Then you're in luck. All you have to do is pick up a course in physics, and ask for a lecture on high-speed impacts. I'm sure you'll be very interested by what you'll learn.

A good place to start, actually, is looking for pictures of hurricane debris that went right through tougher materials.

 

[SOMERLED]

Sheesh Malcolm, I came to JREF arguing on the twoofer side. I'm not on the twoofer side any more, wanna know why?

It's not possible to know the truth of 9/11 and then deny it, unless you have a greater loyalty to someone or something other than justice for murdered innocent office workers.
The arrogance with which some denials are done on here, tells me all I need to know.

 

[twinstead]

It's not possible to know the truth of 9/11 and then deny it, unless you have a greater loyalty to someone or something other than justice for murdered innocent office workers.
The arrogance with which some denials are done on here, tells me all I need to know.

Oh, great, another "anybody who disagrees with me just HAST to be a shill".

Can that get any older?

 

[SOMERLED]

It obviously didn't just "slide in." The huge fuel-air explosion shows that the wings didn't last very long at all. They were going too fast and had too much momentum for the outer wall to stop them, yet the explosion occurred when they were just a few feet into the building. The only part of the wing that would have caused damage to the floor structure is the main spar. Remember, it has to be able to support several times the full weight of the aircraft.
This show that a wing can cut through steel without too much trouble when going fast enough.
See above.
Debunked where?

Debunked on sites that you don't go to.
In other words you are not taking anything to truthers, we are bringing it to you. The tide is turning.

 

[SOMERLED]

What? 12 or so such walls? how did you come up with that? are you not aware that in the area and level the plane impacted the first three rings were of an open floor plan and connected with lower roofs between the rings separating them? are you also aware the exit hole wall need not be blast resistant simply because there was no practical way to drive a truck bomb or similar device from within the rings of the pentagon?

And onto the unburned bible on a stool story. did you not see the millions of individual un-scorched papers falling to the streets of Manhattan from the WTC towers when the planes hit?

OK thats two more beatings you got kirkman.

I'm really on the ropes.
This super strong outer wall was so strong, that the wings didn't even scratch it. It must have some kind of super force field to protect the brickwork.
Any plane hitting any surface of any substance and you have just claimed the virtues of this super strong wall. Any plane hitting such a wall at 45 degrees or less would be deflected along the wall and not go through the wall.

 

[SOMERLED]

,,, and what makes your call for extra-judicial and severe punishment better or more just than anyone else's malcolm?

Kindly tell me where I have called for 'extra judicial' and 'severe' punishment.
If the present law was applied as it should be, all these disuptes would be cleared up. I'm quite content with the way this current senate and congress are dealing with matters. I'm particularily referring to Senators Leahy, Waxman, Shuman, Webb and others. I'm confident that they know what I know and that they simply don't want to hang out all the dirty washing in one go. The net is closing faster than you might think.
What if Ron Paul gets a fair shake off the MSM ?
That's the NWO over in one arrow. That tells me just how big a part the MSM is playing in all this. For the MSM to remain main stream, it has to have the punters. If I were an advertiser, I would look very closely at using the fast diminishing MSM.

 

[jaydeehess]

I'm really on the ropes.
This super strong outer wall was so strong, that the wings didn't even scratch it. It must have some kind of super force field to protect the brickwork.
Any plane hitting any surface of any substance and you have just claimed the virtues of this super strong wall. Any plane hitting such a wall at 45 degrees or less would be deflected along the wall and not go through the wall.

Physics says otherwise malcolm.

How about you show the physics that shows that "
Any plane hitting such a wall at 45 degrees or less would be deflected along the wall and not go through the wall".

 

[Belz...]

It's not possible to know the truth of 9/11 and then deny it, unless you have a greater loyalty to someone or something other than justice for murdered innocent office workers.

False choice. Actually, there's also the possibility that he discovered the twoofer claims to be FALSE.

The arrogance with which some denials are done on here, tells me all I need to know.

Indeed, you seem to think that any who disagree with you are automatically 'evil'. Beats trying to understand their arguments, doesn't it ?

This super strong outer wall was so strong, that the wings didn't even scratch it. It must have some kind of super force field to protect the brickwork.

Are you speaking from experience, or from ignorance, Malcolm ?

And are you sure the wings didn't "scratch" it ?

So it wasn't a cookie-cutter hole. Is that what you were expecting ?

 

[SpitfireIX]

I hope this is a better reply than the last one.
This is the only website I can recollect.
http://911review.org/brad.com/team8plus/Offutt _AFB_Buffett.html
I haven't kept the best records, but then I wasn't expecting to have to reference everything.

First, the linked web page answers none of my questions. Second, why would you expect anyone to take your (extraordinary) claims on faith?? How do we know they aren't just the ravings of some crackpot whose web site you happened upon?? Third, the question about base commanders doesn't require a reference, and I gave you the site you can use to back up your "pilots at the door" claim.

Now, please either a) provide evidence to back up your claims, b) give a reasonable date by which you expect to be able to provide such evidence, or c) withdraw any claims you can't support. If you cannot or will not do this, please explain why anyone should take you or your arguments seriously.