Moderated Legitimate 9/11 Questions

RedIbis said:
Do you think that my question is legitimate? Do you think Tricky will be able to explain why the EPA found no soil contamination at a site where a commercial airliner crashed with 5500 gallons of jet fuel?

I don't need a long winded debunking session, I just want to know if you think it's a legitimate question.
Click to expand...
I think it's legitimate in the sense that I don't know all the answers and would like to hear comments from knowledgable people.

My "sittin' here not having thought about it much" humble opinion is:

1. a lot of the fuel blew up in the initial fireball
2. fuel not consumed in the fireball hit the ground
3. some fuel that hit the ground burned off from ground fires
4. some fuel remained in the surface soil

Just thought you might be interested. If not, it's OK with me.

ETA: Red, I guess I thought TAM's OP was to present legit questions, not to get into discussions about them. If they seem legit, each one should deserve it's own thread, no?
 
Last edited:
To really understand 9/11 you have to go back and really take notice of what the 9/11 Commission concluded, and really think about what they're saying, grasp the implications, and then follow the logic to its conclusion.

The key phrase here is "systematic failure". I've discussed this several times, but to this day it amazes me how few people have actually grasped the significance of the Commission's conclusion. Stating that no individual was to blame, but that the attacks happened due to systematic failures is not a cop out. It's not the "safe route" that avoids punishing anyone.

It's the most damning, scary, terrifying conclusion the Commission could ever come to. And until Americans grasp that, and bother to change their systems, you're wide open to future attacks.

A systematic failure is not individual incompetence, or someone making a mistake, it's an error of attitude, an error in how your entire system is set up, how you do things, what your priorities are. The problems here run very, very deep, right to the core of your cultural identity.

Freedom.

Maybe they didn't attack you for your freedoms, but they sure as heck succeeded because of your freedoms. Americans are ferociously opposed to anything that hinders your freedom of movement. That's why your border security is so atrociously lax. Good security requires a loss of freedom. Believe me, I know this. I live in a country with some of the most robust border security in the world, particularly our bio-security. We have to, because a bio-security failure can destroy entire multi-billion dollar industries. It's the danger of living on an isolated series of islands.

You cannot have free movement between airports, and have competent security at the same time. It's just not possible. And poor airport security in the USA is legendary. That's not due to agency incompetence, or corporate greed. It's due to the expectations and demands of the populace. You demand as much freedom as movement as possible. Well, that comes at a cost.

That's just one example, but there are countless others. And endless parade of so-called failures in government that can be traced back directly to the attitude of the elected representatives, and through them the attitude of the people that voted them in. America didn't want a powerful defense system. You consider the military far more of a threat to your freedom than any foreign entity, and so you've set up an endless line of barriers that prevent your military from harming you, as if without these you'd all be forced into a dictatorship. And as genuine those intentions are, like free movement, they come at a price. A military that is tied down by restrictions cannot oppress it's people, but nor can it properly protect them.

The common theme, in every single government agency that "dropped the ball" on 9/11 is a lack of trust. A lack of trust between agencies, but most importantly a lack of trust between the people and the government. The government cannot protect you if you do not trust them enough to let them.

If you want to know who is really at fault for allowing 9/11 to happen, the answer is the American people. Your creation-myth of overthrowing the oppressive tyrant has developed into a national complex that prevents you trusting your own government. And if you cannot trust your government, you will restrict their powers and their freedom to act, and in doing so render them incapable of doing their jobs.

That's what's really at the guts of this entire sordid story. That's what the Commission meant by a "systematic failure".

What you have to decide is whether the cost of your mistrust - an incompetent chained government that barely manages to function - is balanced by the real risk of that government forcing you all into submission.
 
Mr. Skinny said:
I think it's legitimate in the sense that I don't know all the answers and would like to hear comments from knowledgable people.

My "sittin' here not having thought about it much" humble opinion is:

1. a lot of the fuel blew up in the initial fireball
2. fuel not consumed in the fireball hit the ground
3. some fuel that hit the ground burned off from ground fires
4. some fuel remained in the surface soil

Just thought you might be interested. If not, it's OK with me.
Click to expand...

I'm interested. And I'm certainly interested in your posts as you've always struck me as among the more friendly and reasoned posters.

I've asked for specific information about the soil analyses. Little to nothing has shown up, and the only comments on the subject suggest that there was no soil contamination.

I don't know about you but that rings the curiosity bell.

I don't want to get into a speculative debate with a debunker. I want to keep legitimate questions in this thread. First, is the question legitimate? Second, what specific information disucsses the legitimate question?
 
RedIbis said:
I don't know what radios you're talking about, but the repeater system installed after the 93 bombings was most definitely not operating, probably because it wasn't turned on.

This is one of the truly tragic mistakes made that day because it would have certainly saved many firefighters' lives.
Click to expand...


Yes it was. Where do you think all of the 9/11 audio came from? It came from the repeater.

It was working fine. The FDNY just didn't use it, because Battalion Chief Joseph Pfeifer screwed up when he first tried to use it, erroneously concluded it didn't work, and told everyone not to use the repeater.

It was 100% human error. The screeds of audio recorded during the attacks is stark testimony to how well the repeater worked. It was probably something as simple as the audio being set at the minimum level on the output at the WTC1 lobby fire desk. The repeater recordings captured him doing the tests, for God's sake!

How do you think we have Orio Palmer's ill-fated transmission high in WTC2 if not for the repeater? Palmer moved into WTC2 after it was hit and discovered that the repeater worked fine, so the WTC2 firefighters were using the repeater channel without problems. Meanwhile in WTC1 everyone stayed on channel 1 and 2, which could only penetrate about 5 floors with any reliability.
 
BigAl said:
The repeaters failed to give adequate coverage. Lots of firemen in the north tower failed to get the radio message to evacuate and many of them were among the dead.
Click to expand...

That's because Battalion Chief Joseph Pfeifer told them all to use Channel 1 and 2 instead of the repeater channel which was 7. The repeater was working perfectly. Everything on Channel 7 was recorded.
 
RedIbis said:
I'm interested. And I'm certainly interested in your posts as you've always struck me as among the more friendly and reasoned posters.

I've asked for specific information about the soil analyses. Little to nothing has shown up, and the only comments on the subject suggest that there was no soil contamination.

I don't know about you but that rings the curiosity bell.

I don't want to get into a speculative debate with a debunker. I want to keep legitimate questions in this thread. First, is the question legitimate? Second, what specific information disucsses the legitimate question?
Click to expand...
OK, well the only thing I've seen you post so far was this excerpt from earlier in this thread.
The soil is being tested for jet fuel, and at least three test wells have been sunk to monitor groundwater, since three nearby homes are served by wells, Betsy Mallison, a state Department of Environmental Protection spokeswoman, said.

So far, no contamination has been discovered, she said.
Click to expand...
I just think you might be confusing surface contamination with groundwater contamination, and thought someone like Tricky could explain it to you (us).
 
ElMondoHummus said:
I have Kreel on ignore, and I suggest that other people follow suit. The reason I have him on ignore is because of inanities like this:



I can see in responses that he's been asking ridiculous, asinine questions about the Naudet brothers proximity to the disaster. They were filming a documentary in Manhattan for weeks up to that point; given that they were out and about with the firefighters, how could they have missed the event? There's no mystery to this at all. The fact that they were taken by surprise by the first impact is proof enough that they were not expecting it. But there is no luck involved in their presence to begin with, only odds. And given their task, why would their capturing the first impact be thought of as luck? They were present for other reasons, and had been in the area for weeks before that. Someone explain to me how that's "luck". If I'm in an area every day for weeks on end, and on one of those days I witness a car wreck, is it "luck" that I was there?

Proximity imposed by their choice of tasks is not luck.

And as to the specific comment I unhid to quote: Given that they had already witnessed the first strike, why in God's name would they not be filming the towers? They were documentarians! The capturing of the second impact flows from the fact they were documenting the consequences of the first! Just how far does one need to suspend logic in order to ask such a question?

It is hypocritical for members of the truth movement to find the Naudet brothers' filming of the NY impacts as suspicious, then turn around and find the relative lack of clear video of FL77's impact on the Pentagon as equally suspicious. Suspicion in one case contradicts the grounds for suspicion in the other! And harps on irrelevant details about the events on top of that. Outside of video or film, there is a great deal of evidence converging from multiple sources to establish that the flights identified as having hit the towers and the Pentagon were indeed FL 11, 175, and 77. Harping on film or video as suspicious ignores that plethora of evidence. Video, film, or lack of either does not prove or refute the identity of the flights on their own; rather, in conjunction with everything else that is known, it helps illustrate what happened. It is merely a single brick in the wall of evidence proving what happened on that day. Conspiracy peddlers need to stop obsessing over single bricks and start understanding that their narratives must encompass the entirety of the data, not merely satisfy point beliefs on isolated matters.

Now, can these asinine questions stop, and things move back to T.A.M.'s original intent, which is to focus on legitimate questions? All of the inanities that have been presented have been dealt with previously anyway; just use the damn search function to find them.
Click to expand...



His entire argument is rendered null and void by the fact that the Naudet brothers didn't capture the second impact. They missed it. If you don't believe me watch their documentary yourself.
 
gumboot said:
Yes it was. Where do you think all of the 9/11 audio came from? It came from the repeater.

It was working fine. The FDNY just didn't use it, because Battalion Chief Joseph Pfeifer screwed up when he first tried to use it, erroneously concluded it didn't work, and told everyone not to use the repeater.

It was 100% human error. The screeds of audio recorded during the attacks is stark testimony to how well the repeater worked. It was probably something as simple as the audio being set at the minimum level on the output at the WTC1 lobby fire desk. The repeater recordings captured him doing the tests, for God's sake!

How do you think we have Orio Palmer's ill-fated transmission high in WTC2 if not for the repeater? Palmer moved into WTC2 after it was hit and discovered that the repeater worked fine, so the WTC2 firefighters were using the repeater channel without problems. Meanwhile in WTC1 everyone stayed on channel 1 and 2, which could only penetrate about 5 floors with any reliability.
Click to expand...

I agree. I jumped the gun on your post. It was indeed human error. I wasn't trying to suggest it was malfunctioning.
 
Mr. Skinny said:
OK, well the only thing I've seen you post so far was this excerpt from earlier in this thread.

I just think you might be confusing surface contamination with groundwater contamination, and thought someone like Tricky could explain it to you (us).
Click to expand...

She's referring to all of the tests, soil and groundwater. I thought this was fairly clear when she said, "the soil is being tested for jet fuel, and [...]"

ETA: Unfortunately, these vague statements appear to be all that's come up so far. Like I said, I'm interested in any reports on the soil, if they exist.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
She's referring to all of the tests, soil and groundwater. I thought this was fairly clear when she said, "the soil is being tested for jet fuel, and [...]"
Click to expand...
You're right. She did say soil.

I read it the way I did because the "no contamination" comment immediately follows the "three test wells have been sunk" comment.

So, sure, I suppose it's a legit question. Don't you think they could have just dug up any soil contamination in the days following the crash? In other words "we cleaned up the surface contamination and sunk three wells and so far there is no groundwater contamination"? Anyhow, that's my way of thinking.

But, you are right. The quote says no contamination. So I agree it's a legit question. Why, in your opinion, is it an important question?
 
Last edited:
How did Atta and the terrorists get the explosives into the WTC without being seen?
 
AJM8125 said:
You don't remember the squadron of Dick Cheneys shot gunning the bomb sniffing dogs and security guards in the face? That's why their uniforms were the same color as quail.

It even made Newsweek.
Click to expand...

It's always nice when people defend the terrorists.
 
gumboot said:
His entire argument is rendered null and void by the fact that the Naudet brothers didn't capture the second impact. They missed it. If you don't believe me watch their documentary yourself.
Click to expand...

They didn't capture the second impact?? Huh... I thought they did. My mistake. I've seen so many recordings of the second impact I just for some odd reason thought one of them was theirs.

Color me corrected. Thanks for that.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
They didn't capture the second impact?? Huh... I thought they did. My mistake. I've seen so many recordings of the second impact I just for some odd reason thought one of them was theirs.

Color me corrected. Thanks for that.
Click to expand...



It's pretty obscure and not very good. The Naudet Brother who caught this image was (quite understandedbly) more concerned with getting the hell out of there.
 
Sure he was...right after moneyshot II.

So we have moneyshot I - the first strike, captured by Jules - who just happened to be in the perfect location with no distractions from traffic with his camera running, AND we have moneyshot II by Gideon who just happened to be waiting with his camera running and pointing at the south tower.

Can this be all there is? Is this the end of the Naudet freakshow?

Hardly.

Anyone else catch Naudets' 911 and want to guess what else they captured that morning?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom