"24 hard facts about 9/11 that cannot be debunked"

[jaydeehess]

Well SoG believes that the Secret Service already knew that GWB was in no danger so did not move him.

Potus has little or no say in where or when the Service moves him in the event of a threat. When Regan was attacked he was bodily shoved into the car which then sped away. This was before anyone knew that a bullet had hit him. Regan was given no choice, not consulted on what to do next, it was all the pervue of his protective squad.
So if SoG is correct then every Secret Service agent on the squad was in-on-it. All of these men and women still carry that knowledge with them then. They know with certainty and clarity that 911 was pre-planned by the administration. That by doing what they did they are complicit in a cover up of the murder of thousands and treasonous acts.

Furthermore, the protective squad, when informed that they were to not follow SOP ( as SoG would have us believe) no one suggested that in order to better continue the illusion that these were unexpected attacks, that it might be better if they followed SOP and rushed GWB off to AF1.

In fact if the supposed perpetrators and planners had simply kept the Secret Service out of the loop then there would be a dozen ,or more, fewer people who would know the 'truth'.

Instead, SoG would have us believe, the planners decided, for some inexplicable reason , to alter the response by Bush's protective squad thus exposing their plan to discovery on several fronts.

In short, either the planners of this vast and complicated conspiracy are utter idiots

I note that absolutely none of this was commented upon by bifocal sonofgloin

 

[jaydeehess]

In fact, of course, while the tower's design was checked, as an afterthought, whether or not they could withstand the impact of a 707 which was suffering the same lost in fog low on fuel situation as that of the B25 which hit the ESB, it did survive, decades later, the impact of newer Boeing hitting at much greater velocity.

I do not know how, in 1970 , anyone would even calculate if it could survive the heat generated by multilevel, large area modern office material fires ignited by the dumping of thousands of gallons of liquid acellerant over those floors.

 

[BasqueArch]

.....
....so it is still back to fire collapsing three steel framed buildings in one place for the first time in history.
.....

Is it your claim that it is impossible for something that has never happened before in history to happen for the first time?

 

[jaydeehess]

Is it your claim that it is impossible for something that has never happened before in history to happen for the first time?

Good news. No one has therefore died in a space shuttle disaster.
Hiroshima was a quiet Japanese city throughout WW2

 

[Craig4]

Conspiracy and the Bush's...why did George lie about how he got the information of the second strike. Why would he do that. What did the agent whisper into his ear if, as George tells it he got the info during a break......perhaps the agent said " Mr President this is the little charade you asked me to pull."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60

I note you didn't use question marks but those are still questions. Questions aren't evidence.

 

[Craig4]

I expect you will be forwarding me precedents regarding high rises falling to their basements due to fire....on upper or lower floors, I’ll take either.

Perhaps you're missing the key features of a progressive collapse.

 

[ozeco41]

Good news. No one has therefore died in a space shuttle disaster.
Hiroshima was a quiet Japanese city throughout WW2

My first granddaughter doesn't exist????

But second one can....err.... if the first isn't then the second is first....and cannot be...

...Eureka. The world has zero population.

 

[sonofgloin]

Now, do you have any evidence to support your case that does not rely entirely on mis-interpreted witness statements?

The Pesident of the United States says he watched it on TV at the school.....and you say he didn’t, that he imagined it.....that’s what it comes down to Mark.....he said it. He misrepresented the facts. He even dreamed up a hokey folksy line about what a terrible pilot the guy was.

They are always expecting us to educate them but they never listen to the answers.

Educate me D, tell me why these officials made these observations regarding Shanksville.

>> "This crash was different. There was no wreckage, no bodies, and no noise."
- Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller [1]
"I was looking for anything that said tail, wing, plane, metal. There was nothing."
- Photographer Scott Spangler [2]
"I was amazed because it did not, in any way, shape, or form, look like a plane crash."
- Patrick Madigan, commander of the Somerset barracks
of the Pennsylvania State Police [3]<<
I actually watched the Coroner make this statement on a news feed at the site on the day. I have not forgotten the plethora of first hand testimony and I do not discount it because a decade has passed.

That's a pretty heavy burden to place on the precise wording of what is after all not a technical document nor even a public notice from the WTC but merely a newspaper's description of the wording of a public notice from the WTC. Do you have any supporting evidence to make that stance seem any less unreasonable?

Jack everything other than first hand testimony relies on a source. I can only say that the London Telegraph is a tabloid of long standing and there was no retraction or rebuff. Re the “technical document” is that akin to the Hockey Graph that governments legislated carbon abatement laws around. The one found to be totally fabricated towards an outcome to suit the greenies?

LOL, you bring woo, and you don't know it. ?

BN, I did read your entire post, but I will only ask one question...what is woo, a few have used it, is it just this forum that employs it (I expect it means spin) or is it used on other forums?

Since they did "withstand them" and only collapsed after an hour of uncontrolled fire, your point?

Rob it was simply acknowleging that the WTC extoled that the towers were impact resistant. Some here commented that it was not a design feature, that the ability to resist came as a consequence of the design....whats the difference...WTC acknowlege that they were....someone asked me to qualify it.

Well that makes little to no sense. Witness testimony is trumped by all manner of documentary and physical evidence. I for one discount witness statements especially in a setting in which they will be highly prone to subjectivity , hyperbole, and metaphor. If you choose otherwise you simply bolster my opinion of your opinion.

Jay you are correct, witness testimony is not worth the electricity it cost to generate it...that is why it is the most valid testimony in our legal system. The only way to rebuke witness testimony is to show that there is an agenda to the statements other than just an account of experienced events.
Why would all the testimony on the day by uninterested parties there by chance be highly prone to subjectivity, hyperbole, and metaphor?

I would suggest you read Animal's post above, and since you are fond of argumentum ad youtubeum why don't you look up Leslie Robertson's description of the whole "design for aircraft" crap? And by the way, it is poor form to alter members' names.

No more Joe for you sport....thanks SlyJoe.....

Perhaps you're missing the key features of a progressive collapse.

You can count the number of progressive collapses on your fingers Craig....then we get three in the one place within 8 hours.....Lots of firsts with 911.

 

[dafydd]

The Pesident of the United States says he watched it on TV at the school.....and you say he didn’t, that he imagined it.....that’s what it comes down to Mark.....he said it. He misrepresented the facts. He even dreamed up a hokey folksy line about what a terrible pilot the guy was.

Educate me D, tell me why these officials made these observations regarding Shanksville.

>> "This crash was different. There was no wreckage, no bodies, and no noise."
- Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller [1]
"I was looking for anything that said tail, wing, plane, metal. There was nothing."
- Photographer Scott Spangler [2]
"I was amazed because it did not, in any way, shape, or form, look like a plane crash."
- Patrick Madigan, commander of the Somerset barracks
of the Pennsylvania State Police [3]<<

All experts in terrorist attacks and plane crash investigation, no doubt. When will you be releasing your evidence to a stunned world? Get in touch with a national newspaper and blow the gaff.

 

[dafydd]

You can count the number of progressive collapses on your fingers Craig....then we get three in the one place within 8 hours.....Lots of firsts with 911.

Perhaps you would care to break the twoofer mold and be the first one here to present your full theory of the events of 911, together with your evidence. The floor is yours. Bear in mind that if you are accusing people of mass murder then the evidence has to be good.

 

[Spanx]

BN, I did read your entire post, but I will only ask one question...what is woo, a few have used it, is it just this forum that employs it (I expect it means spin) or is it used on other forums?

What amazes me, or perhaps I should say amuses me.

Sonofgloin has figured the whole story of 911 was an inside job by watching YouTube yet he can't figure out why Beachnut uses the term Woo on the James Randi Educational Forum.

 

[twinstead]

Perhaps you would care to break the twoofer mold and be the first one here to present your full theory of the events of 911, together with your evidence. The floor is yours. Bear in mind that if you are accusing people of mass murder then the evidence has to be good.

And as we all know, nothing ever happens for the first time. Ever. That's reason enough to be suspicious

 

[twinstead]

>> "This crash was different. There was no wreckage, no bodies, and no noise."
- Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller [1]
"I was looking for anything that said tail, wing, plane, metal. There was nothing."
- Photographer Scott Spangler [2]
"I was amazed because it did not, in any way, shape, or form, look like a plane crash."
- Patrick Madigan, commander of the Somerset barracks
of the Pennsylvania State Police [3]<<

Have you asked Mr Miller if he thinks there was a crash at that site? Have you asked Mr Spangler his opinion? Have you asked Mr Madigan if what he saw looked suspicious to him?

Jesus, anybody can take quotes like these and try to make a case. What would a court of law do with these statements, by the way? Well, since for each of these statements there are hundreds of statements and a ton of physical evidence confirming a plane crash, a court of law would speak to ALL of the witnesses and take into consideration ALL of the evidence to get a picture of what really happened.

All you are doing is channeling the creepy defense lawyer trying desperately to get his clients off. A court wouldn't fall for it, and I certainly am not. The
preponderance of evidence makes your case weak. Anybody with half a brain can see through your simple debate techniques. Perhaps you should go to a forum where people are more accepting of your debate style.

 

[sonofgloin]

Perhaps you should go to a forum where people are more accepting of your debate style.

Don't reply if it does not suit ts.....

 

[dafydd]

Don't reply if it does not suit ts.....

No full theory. Colour me unsurprised. After all, there are no full theories on twoofer YooToob.

 

[yodaluver28]

The Pesident of the United States says he watched it on TV at the school.....and you say he didn’t, that he imagined it.....that’s what it comes down to Mark.....he said it. He misrepresented the facts. He even dreamed up a hokey folksy line about what a terrible pilot the guy was.

I don't think he really misrepresented or dreamed up anything. His mind conflated two related images and filed them into the proper timeline in his mind even though he didn't actually see those images chronologically as they happened. A lot of people have done it. You'd be amazed how many people are convinced that they saw the first plane hit live on national TV but they couldn't have because it wasn't on TV live anywhere, it was filmed by a documentary film crew and only aired on TV several hours later. The second plane strike was seen live on every major network, but since we all know that the Flight 11 strike happened first, it's filed in many people's memory as the one they saw first even though in real life they all saw it after the Flight 175 strike and after both buildings had collapsed.

Educate me D, tell me why these officials made these observations regarding Shanksville.

>> "This crash was different. There was no wreckage, no bodies, and no noise."
- Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller [1]
"I was looking for anything that said tail, wing, plane, metal. There was nothing."
- Photographer Scott Spangler [2]
"I was amazed because it did not, in any way, shape, or form, look like a plane crash."
- Patrick Madigan, commander of the Somerset barracks
of the Pennsylvania State Police [3]<<
I actually watched the Coroner make this statement on a news feed at the site on the day. I have not forgotten the plethora of first hand testimony and I do not discount it because a decade has passed.

The debris field was unusual because the circumstances of the crash were unusual. A deliberate crash in a steep angle at very high speed, leaving the plane and it's occupants in tiny, largely unidentifiable pieces. Even though the Flight 93 crash was unusual, it's debris field was similar to plane crashes that also featured steep plummets and hit the ground nose down at high speed, such as USAir Flight 427 in 1994. The characteristics of the Flight 93 crash site were unusual but not unprecedented.

Jay you are correct, witness testimony is not worth the electricity it cost to generate it...that is why it is the most valid testimony in our legal system. The only way to rebuke witness testimony is to show that there is an agenda to the statements other than just an account of experienced events.

Nonsense, eyewitness testimony is by far the least reliable and valid type of evidence imaginable. The human memory is malleable and ever changing. Even the most honest, well-meaning people in the world will misremember important moments and details because that's just how the brain is. It is obsessed with finding patterns, connecting dots, and filling in blanks and when there is not enough information to do so accurately, the memory and the reality are going to be different. Physical evidence and expert testimony explaining the physical evidence always trump witness testimony, especially when it contradicts the physical evidence.

Why would all the testimony on the day by uninterested parties there by chance be highly prone to subjectivity, hyperbole, and metaphor?

Because all memory-based testimony is prone to subjectivity, hyperbole, and metaphor no matter who gives it or on what subject. It's not even intentional in most cases, it's just the brain doing it's routine "fill in the blanks to try and make sense of what I saw" thing.

You can count the number of progressive collapses on your fingers Craig....then we get three in the one place within 8 hours.....Lots of firsts with 911.

Yeah, because that "one place" had been attacked by terrorists in fully-loaded jetliners that deliberately crashed into two ginormous buildings. The third building was destroyed by debris and fire caused by the collapse of the two buildings that got rammed into. There were also more than three buildings destroyed that day. WTCs 1, 2, 3, and 7 were completely destroyed. WTCs 4, 5, and 6 were almost completely destroyed and had to have what little was left of them torn down. The Deutsche Bank Building was heavily damaged and ultimately had to be dismantled and will be replaced by the new WTC 5.

How many other buildings around the world have been smashed into at high speed by a fully-loaded jetliner deliberately flown right into it, which started a raging fire after knocking the fireproofing off critical load bearing steel members? While it's true that numerous skyscrapers had never collapsed in one day before, no skyscrapers had ever been attacked by jetliners being used as missiles starting a cascade of failures that would destroy the buildings and other buildings around them. That was the real "first ever" on 9/11. Unless that happens elsewhere, we can't compare what happened to the WTC complex to anything else.

 

[dafydd]

I don't think he really misrepresented or dreamed up anything. His mind conflated two related images and filed them into the proper timeline in his mind even though he didn't actually see those images chronologically as they happened. A lot of people have done it. You'd be amazed how many people are convinced that they saw the first plane hit live on national TV but they couldn't have because it wasn't on TV live anywhere, it was filmed by a documentary film crew and only aired on TV several hours later. Th

I thought I had seen the first plane live. As for the rest of your post, presenting twoofers with facts and logic is a waste of time.

 

[jaydeehess]

Jay you are correct, witness testimony is not worth the electricity it cost to generate it...that is why it is the most valid testimony in our legal system. The only way to rebuke witness testimony is to show that there is an agenda to the statements other than just an account of experienced events.
Why would all the testimony on the day by uninterested parties there by chance be highly prone to subjectivity, hyperbole, and metaphor?
.

Wrong! For instance a witnesses statement identifying a person as the perpetrator is trumped by DNA. It is trumped by documentary evidence, saysecurity video tthat shows he was somewhere else. In fact any documentary or physical evidence contrary to the witness trumps the witness.
So you know as much about law as you do the Secret Service

 

[Mark F]

All experts in terrorist attacks and plane crash investigation, no doubt. When will you be releasing your evidence to a stunned world? Get in touch with a national newspaper and blow the gaff.

Heck, I just want to know when he is going to stop relying on quote-mined comments (usually just single sentences plucked from much longer comments), cherry-picked specifically to remove them from their proper context to suit his personal brand of reality distortion.

This guy is a lost cause. It is nothing but the same old game of whack-a-mole again. He makes accusations based on a few very loosely interpreted anomalous witness statements, usually without proper context and always without corroboration, then we explain why he is wrong, then he changes the subject.

He has been asked repeatedly to present something, anything resembling a prima facie case and he ignores those requests. When given the option to chose the rational or the completely ridiculous interpretation of his "evidence" he goes for the completely ridiculous every single time. This is after all a person who seriously real estate developers can order the local fire department to blow up buildings in order to save lives

I personally would like to bring this conversation back around to where sonofgloin stepped into it - with the claim that Building 7 was blown up by Larry Silverstein and the FDNY in an insurance scam. I challenged him to present his detailed prima facie case for this way back around page 3 AND explain how that fits into all the other events of that day especially Flights 77 and 93. He predictably ignored the request and changed the subject.

Rather than allowing all these new tangents I would like to bring this back to the un-resolved business of where this particular part of the conversation started. So what so you sonofgloin? Care to present your comprehensive analysis of everything that happened on 9/11, explaining who did it, how they did it, and why? Remember, you have to include EVERYTHING. No picking Cherries.

 

[Mark F]

I thought I had seen the first plane live. As for the rest of your post, presenting twoofers with facts and logic is a waste of time.

There was a short series broadcast on History Channel last month - one of those truly interesting programs that are becoming increasingly rare on this channel - called "Your Bleeped Up Brain" about how fallible and maleable human memory and recollection are.

http://www.history.com/shows/your-b...ped up brain&gclid=CO3pqsqfh7oCFatcMgodaXsAKQ

They specifically addressed the Bush comment about seeing the first plane hit on TV. Interestingly they also talked about the results of a poll in which 70% of those responding said they had seen the first plane hit on live TV even though nobody saw the first plane hit on live TV.