The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

Folks, we are today here dealing with two very different truthers:

  • atavism is totally clueless and repeats all the long debunked false memes. He basically doesn't know the facts, doesn't understand engineering, physics, aviation and politics, and cannot be taught. I suggest ignore the troll.
  • achimspok has made himself a name for being very thorough on details (and maybe also getting lost in details) and even on occasion finding other truthers mistaken. I think he represents the more interesting challenge here. I suggest we try not to forget to keep hin on the hook wrt to the passport issues.

So may I repeat this here, as long as achimspok hasn't seen and replied to my analysis of how the wind could have carried a passport:
Oystein said:
achimspok said:
LOL. Tell me about your passports fly against the wind aerodynamics.
...
Click to expand...
In Post #1538 I showed, using mostly evidence (and all of the evidence) that you provided earlier in this thread, plus maps, plus satellite image from NASA that clears up the prevailing wind direction that morning, that
  • The press reports are imprecise about the location where Suqami's passport was picked up
  • That location could very conceivably have been to the east and slightly south of the North Tower
  • The wind blew more from west than north at the time
  • It is possible for the wind to have blown the passport to a location that can be reasonably described as "[several, or three] blocks away from the crash site" and "in the vicinity of [not on! read the reports carefully!] Vesey Street"
  • Given the circumstances under which Detective Chin was given the passport, it is not inconceivable that even that description "in the vicinity of Vesey Street" is simply wrong; several reasons are possible that arise commonly when witnesses with no experience in CSI report something to detective, detective to investigator, investigator to press.
  • The story didn't change afterwards. Later reports had added details and left out other, but there is no contradiction

I took your arguments and evidence very seriously and put a lot of effort into analysing them. I kindly ask you to return the favour and have a critical and careful look at my arguments!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Please - everyone - keep things civil, on topic, and remember to address the argument without attacking the arguer. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
silver birch said:
American Airlines itse-lf is the source for information that flights 11 and 77 did not fly on 9/11

http://letsrollforums.com/did-flights-11-and-t19082.html
Click to expand...

It's been said, 'the best disinformation is 90% true.' There is more nonsense online about 911 than just about any other subject. A lot of this material purports (pretends) to support "9-11 Truth" when in fact the goal is to misdirect people and spread disinformation. For this reason, it is best to stick to only the most cogent facts that make the official story impossible. There is an overwhelming abundance of evidence for demolition in lower Manhattan on 9-11. Any talk of the Pentagon, or switched planes or anything that isn't an easily verifiable fact should be avoided. I like the page I link to in my signature because it links to the -best info out there. The most damning critiques...and REAL issues at the heart of those who are skeptical of the official explanations of what happened to WTC 1 2 &7.

Websites like 'pilots for 911 truth' (which has been so cross-linked with 'the Pentacon' flyover nonsense in times past, that they are obviously run by the same people) are NOT real 9-11 Truth because look what they focus on, -the Pentagon. I could say the same for Alex Jones (who mixes some good 9-11 information in with his paranoid visions of global slavery by Moloch worshipers from Bohemian Grove..).

You get the idea. People naturally dismiss it all out of hand because parts of it are so nonsensical. And not everyone is equally critical. This is one way in which disinfo works. I think it is best to stay away from both. Most 911 related forums get flooded with tons of this stuff...bad or incomplete information (so people who dont know better come to think that 9-11 Truth means Alex Jones, or Jim Fetzer, and so yeah, 'it's conspiratorial nonsense.' I know that was my initial reaction).. And argue that no plane could have hit the pentagon...(when the evidence clearly shows otherwise and more importantly, the point is completely irrelevant for our purposes anyway because it isn't needed to prove the 'inside job' hypothesis.

If we wish to be effective...focus on the most damning evidence only. That which anyone can verify because it's sources are referenced or easily accessible. That which makes sense because it is reasonable. Just because NIST says "no one heard an explosion loud enough to dislodge column 79" so we didnt need to test for explosives" doesn't mean we have to believe it. Or call these large synchronized squibs http://ajl.smugmug.com/9-11/North-Tower-Exploding/17630751_wwz6mG#!i=1343703016&k=fqRVcPc&lb=1&s=O "compressed air from the pancaking floors above" when we can clearly see that was not the case. Doesn't mean we have to believe it. (especially when it is so obviously false: ttp://ajl.smugmug.com/9-11/North-Tower-Exploding/17630751_wwz6mG#!i=1343703016&k=fqRVcPc&lb=1&s=O

Look at the videos of the day, at the descriptions of those who lived through it first-hand, at the behavior (and lack thereof) of 'investigators' and the facts on the ground and you will see there is more than enough well-documented evidence for the demolition of wtc 1 2 &7.
 
atavisms said:
It's been said, 'the best disinformation is 90% true.' There is more nonsense online about 911 than just about any other subject. A lot of this material purports (pretends) to support "9-11 Truth" when in fact the goal is to misdirect people and spread disinformation.
Click to expand...


And who's to say that the nonsense you post isn't part of this goal, hmm?
 
atavisms said:
implosion. How could fires cause a building to fall symmetrically......
Click to expand...

Since I have shown that to be inaccurate, you're lying.

Did you see the picture on the last page?

atavisms said:
Fires cause gradual asymmetrical damage. Steels regains its strength when the fuel source burns up...
Click to expand...

You apparently haven't read the NIST report.

BTW, just because fire moves to a different area, doesn't mean the heat is no longer present. Convection, radiant, and direct heat, are all still heat.

Does your magical steel heal itself too?

How much support is a sagging steel beam going to provide?

(Hint: It's not what you think)
 
atavisms said:
really? Even though the only time such features have ever been seen in such a building were during planned demolition implosions?
Click to expand...

Show me another implosion that is silent, and falls the exact same way, and (since I am assuming you're referring to FFA of 7WTC for 2.25 seconds) one that achieved FFA for ANY amount of time.

You'd be the first truther to ever do so.

atavisms said:
and yet here it involved the slaughter of nearly 3000 of our fellow citizens and the rush off to two wars? Oh OK!! If you say so..
Click to expand...

7WTC contained no people.
 
atavisms said:
It's been said, 'the best disinformation is 90% true.' There is more nonsense online about 911 than just about any other subject. A lot of this material purports (pretends) to support "9-11 Truth" when in fact the goal is to misdirect people and spread disinformation.
Click to expand...

How does pulling the 'disinfo agents' card to explain the crazy things that 911 CTers say supposed to make you look less crazy?? :boggled:

Seems to me that misdirecting people and spreading disinformation is exactly what 911 cults do.
 
atavisms said:
It's been said, 'the best disinformation is 90% true...
Click to expand...

Oh good. So now we know you are not spreading disinfo. Your misinformed, long debunked stuff is at most 9% true (e.g. the parts about people actually dying).
 
triforcharity said:
BTW, just because fire moves to a different area, doesn't mean the heat is no longer present. Convection, radiant, and direct heat, are all still heat.
Click to expand...

The fact that the fires moved may have amplified the distorsion of the steel.

Heat any large free-span steel roof uniformly to 800F and then spray water on just one section of it and see what happens.

(I do not suggest you stand directly under it.)
 
atavisms said:
... well-documented evidence for the demolition of wtc 1 2 &7.
Click to expand...
You have no documentation. You have lies about 911. No math, no physics, no fire science, no engineer, no joy.

You wave your hands, are right Balsamo's Pilots for truth are nuts, yet the claims you post are as idiotic as Balsamo's claims.

Produce your evidence, try showing your work.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
So may I repeat this here, as long as achimspok hasn't seen and replied to my analysis of how the wind could have carried a passport:
Click to expand...
Well, even the wind from NW cannot carry the passport 2 blocks to the north.
"vicinity of Vesey St" was named by Barry Mawn, director of NY FBI
I guess you will hardly find the the FBI interview with detective Chin.
And of course the 9/11 report (first) tried to put it in a minimum of logic.
Hence, the Zelikow Commission (first) stated that it was found prior to the collapses. SURPRISE SURPRISE
All these stories were changed again and again. Pilots Uniforms were transformed into wedding suits and so on.

Nevertheless:
The wrong Alomari cannot have a parking space for Atta. LIE
The FBI had no Alomari passport until (may be 3 years) later because they continued to hunt the wrong Alomaris, used the wrong names, used the wrong birthdays, searched the wrong adresses...
3 years later they claimed they had found the passport in the delayed luggage on 9/11. MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL
That late passport (never shown to the public) was "manipulated" in the same way like the magical Suqami passport.
The way of manipulations make no sense for any criminal who has a real passport.

Hence, you better find that man in the buisness suit.
 
achimspok said:
Well, even the wind from NW cannot carry the passport 2 blocks to the north.
I guess you will hardly find the the FBI interview with detective Chin.

Pilots Uniforms were transformed into wedding suits and so on.
SURPRISE SURPRISE
Nevertheless:
The wrong Alomari cannot have a parking space for Atta. LIE

Hence, you better find that man in the buisness suit.
Click to expand...

Detective Chin -
'Ancient ancestor once say, "Words cannot cook rice." '
 
Last edited:
achimspok said:
Well, even the wind from NW cannot carry the passport 2 blocks to the north.
"vicinity of Vesey St" was named by Barry Mawn, director of NY FBI
I guess you will hardly find the the FBI interview with detective Chin.
And of course the 9/11 report (first) tried to put it in a minimum of logic.
Hence, the Zelikow Commission (first) stated that it was found prior to the collapses. SURPRISE SURPRISE
All these stories were changed again and again. Pilots Uniforms were transformed into wedding suits and so on.

Nevertheless:
The wrong Alomari cannot have a parking space for Atta. LIE
The FBI had no Alomari passport until (may be 3 years) later because they continued to hunt the wrong Alomaris, used the wrong names, used the wrong birthdays, searched the wrong adresses...
3 years later they claimed they had found the passport in the delayed luggage on 9/11. MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL
That late passport (never shown to the public) was "manipulated" in the same way like the magical Suqami passport.
The way of manipulations make no sense for any criminal who has a real passport.

Hence, you better find that man in the buisness suit.
Click to expand...

achimspok your posts are almost incoherent. I cannot determine what it is that has you so angry that you post snide and sarcastic comments without stating what you are concerned about.

All that I can determine from your recent posts is that:

A) You doubt the veracity of the passport; AND
B) you also question the veracity of car parking space allocation.

So what???

What is the issue that you are trying unsuccessfully to raise by discussing the passport?

What is the significant issue that is put in doubt if the passport evidence is false?

What effect does it have if the name of the hijacking pilot is wrong?

Then the same questions about the car parking - so what if the name is wrong.

Are you suggesting that the aircraft did not fly into the tower? If that is not what you are leading to what is it that you want to dispute?

I have no problem if your intention is merely troll the threads without stating your claim - we have many trolls who have that goal. If you want to be taken seriously however you need to state clearly what you are claiming.....and that is not details about carparking or passports.
 
achimspok said:
Well, even the wind from NW cannot carry the passport 2 blocks to the north.
Click to expand...
  • You missed the main point of my arguments: That the passport may quite likely have been found NOT north of the crash zone but west and even slightly to the south of it. Please do your reply over, this time considering this fact, which arises from the fact that Vesey St heads towards 120°, not 90°, on the compass.
  • Where do you get that info "2 blocks" from? The only specific number of blocks away that is mentioned anywhere in your sources is 3 blocks

achimspok said:
"vicinity of Vesey St" was named by Barry Mawn, director of NY FBI I guess you will hardly find the the FBI interview with detective Chin.
Click to expand...
Yes, and that is the ONLY mention we have of Vesey Street. So you either accept that information as credible; then you must accept that "in the vicinity of" means not on Vesey but an unspecified distance away from Vesey. Or you do not accept that information as credible; then you must throw Vesey out of your argument altogether.

achimspok said:
And of course the 9/11 report (first) tried to put it in a minimum of logic.
Hence, the Zelikow Commission (first) stated that it was found prior to the collapses. SURPRISE SURPRISE
Click to expand...
Poisoning the Well Logical Fallacy.

achimspok said:
All these stories were changed again and again. Pilots Uniforms were transformed into wedding suits and so on.
Click to expand...
I showed you that the story of the passport didn't change according to your sources; only the details that were reported at various times by various sources differed. There is no contradiction between earlier and later reports.

If you feel different, please point out the specific reports that you think are in contradiction of one another!

achimspok said:
Nevertheless:
The wrong Alomari cannot have a parking space ...
Click to expand...
No need to play two goals at a time. Let's settle the passport issue first, okay?
 
I suspect there is some confusion over what the word "vicinity" means.

Heck I live in the "vicinity" of Nevada since it is only about a hundred miles away.
 
beachnut said:
19 terrorists did all the damage with 4 planes. A complex simple plot. Too many steps for you to figure out?
1. Kill pilots and crew as needed to take planes.
2. Crash planes into buildings.
Too complex simple for 911 truth
Click to expand...
FTFY.

It's so simple that it's scary. It freaks people out to feel so vulnerable. It's more acceptable if all was a complex plot schemed by someone closer than to feel in the hands of radical Arabic extremists.
 
achimspok said:
* reported mace in business class
* passengers evacuated in the back
* flight attendants who came back from business class
* cockpit door closed
Click to expand...
So the plan was for all FIVE hijackers to be in the cabin, and using mace in business class so that no passenger could cross? Five hijackers needed to use a mace can?

Is that the best you have to "prove" the passport was in the cabin?

Please add that claim to this thread. Thanks for your contribution.

achimspok said:
Do you think that 5 hijackers and two pilots had enough space in the cockpit?
Click to expand...
In response to this irrelevant question I'll answer yes, there was.

So, to sum up, you only have speculation based on this:

  • Where you believe the passport was located in the plane.
  • Reports mentioning it was handed to the police (not found) in "the vicinity Vessey St."
And based on your speculation you conclude that the passport was planted? Well, at a minimum you should admit that your conclusions of it being planted are speculation themselves, as they are based on your speculation with respect to the evidence you bring, which as Oystein has made clear is not contradictory nor inconsistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom