Not another 911 thread

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

Yes you were, you were supposing that I believed a magic fireball caused the 9-11 attacks, I never said that, thusly you were putting words in my mouth.

I was supposing nothing - I asked a question - clearly because I didn't know what you believed. I'll add written comprehension to elementary physics as areas you've difficulty with.

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

Sorry for that - elementary physics work for most people.

You're having a laugh aren't you?
What is it with sceptics and being condescending?
If a "CTer" claimed that a passport survived the 9-11 attacks you'd be saying it's impossible.
You put a passport in a fireball inside a plane, it's not coming out as a passport, it's coming out as the burnt remnants of a passport.

You're just arguing the point because you feel it proves your point.
Sometimes you have to use logic, and as you're so keen to point out elementary physics.

I don't mind you having a differing opinion to me, but don't you dare to ever speak down your nose to me my friend.

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

I was supposing nothing - I asked a question - clearly because I didn't know what you believed. I'll add written comprehension to elementary physics as areas you've difficulty with.

You don't know what I believe.
thats the very point I was making.
You ASSSUMED I believed something.
I don't believe what you're saying I believe.
Your post made the assumption that I believed in magic fireballs.

You should think befoe you post Alastair.

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

You don't know what I believe.
thats the very point I was making.
You ASSSUMED I believed something.
I don't believe what you're saying I believe.
Your post made the assumption that I believed in magic fireballs.

Like I say - written comprehension clearly isn't your forte. Why not toddle off and figure out where you started to started getting the distinction between questions and statements arse-backwards?

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

You put a passport in a fireball inside a plane, it's not coming out as a passport, it's coming out as the burnt remnants of a passport.

As a matter of fact is was burned, but the details were all still readable (on the WTC one). I suppose that life-vest is a figment of my imagination too then? After all - it couldn't possibly survive the impact eh?

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

As a matter of fact is was burned, but the details were all still readable (on the WTC one). I suppose that life-vest is a figment of my imagination too then? After all - it couldn't possibly survive the impact eh?

The passport in question was proved to not belong to the hijacker it was claimed to belong to.
This is old news.

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

Care to say that to my face?

yeah yeah very impressive - try and channel that energy into using an ounce of reasoning eh?

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

Like I say - written comprehension clearly isn't your forte. Why not toddle off and figure out where you started to started getting the distinction between questions and statements arse-backwards?

Alastair, you're beginning to lose the run of yourself.
Would you say that to my face? I doubt it. Why say it here?

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

The passport in question was proved to not belong to the hijacker it was claimed to belong to.
This is old news.

Rubbish - care to back up that up?

Meanwhile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satam_al-Suqami

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

Rubbish - care to back up that up?

Meanwhile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satam_al-Suqami

I doubt you'd entertain my sources.

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

yeah yeah very impressive - try and channel that energy into using an ounce of reasoning eh?

Try having a discussion without resorting to insults.

humanji

Alastair and Nullzero, discuss the topic politely or don't post in this thread.

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

I doubt you'd entertain my sources.

You might be right there. But feel free to try.

Di0genes

alastair wrote: »

As a matter of fact is was burned, but the details were all still readable (on the WTC one). I suppose that life-vest is a figment of my imagination too then? After all - it couldn't possibly survive the impact eh?

Orange County, CA., Sept. 11 - Lisa Anne Frost was 22 and had just graduated from Boston University in May 2001 with two degrees and multiple academic and service honors. She had worked all summer in Boston before coming home, finally, to California to start her new life. The Rancho Santa Margarita woman was on United Flight 175 on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when it became the second plane to slam into the World Trade Center...

Her parents, Tom and Melanie Frost, have spent two years knowing they will never understand why.

A few days before the first anniversary of our daughter's murder, we were notified that they had found a piece of her in the piles and piles of gritty rubble of the World Trade Center that had been hauled out to Staten Island. It was Lisa's way, we believe, of telling us she wasn't lost.

In February, the day of the Columbia tragedy, we got word they'd found her United Airlines Mileage Plus card. It was found very near where they'd found a piece of her right hip. We imagine that she used the card early on the morning of Sept. 11 to get on the plane and just stuck it in her back pocket, probably her right back pocket, instead of in her purse. They have found no other personal effects".

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:tI2PQRqfJiIJ:www.msnbc.com/local/MYOC/M324557.asp

On Oct. 12, it arrived inside a second envelope at Mrs. Snyder's modest white house on Main Street here, and the instant she took it out and saw it, she says, ''chills just went over me.'' It was singed and crumpled. A chunk was ripped out, giving the bottom of the envelope she had sent the look of a jagged skyline. Mrs. Snyder's lyrical script had blurred into the scorched paper. The stamp, depicting a World War II sailor embracing a woman welcoming him home, was intact.

Along with the letter was a note: ''To whom it may concern. This was found floating around the street in downtown New York. I am sorry if you suffered any loss in this tragedy. Sincerely, a friend in New York!''

Since then, Mrs. Snyder, a customer service representative at a grocery store, has discovered that she has one of only two pieces of mail known to have been recovered from the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. At least one auction house has contacted her, saying she could sell the letter for tens of thousands of dollars.

http://gk.nytimes.com/mem/gatekeeper.html?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/20/national/20LETT.html&OP=2edab88aQ2F-xQ3AO-wp5tDppJQ51-Q51))Q22-Q22Q51-Q51)-yQ3DJRpyQ3D6-Q51)hQ3EccfmJG6

My name is URL

alastair wrote: »

Rubbish - care to back up that up?

Meanwhile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satam_al-Suqami

It just seems so unlikely that the only passport to be found belonged to a hijacker.. seriously, there's coincidence and then there's that.

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

You might be right there. But feel free to try.

I'm not going to waste my time.
You're free to have your beliefs, I'm not trying to make anyone believe anything.
We've been warned for the tone of the discussion already, I personally have had enough of being insulted by you. Should you see your way to apologising for your remarks I'll continue the discussion, until such a time I'm out.
It might also be a good idea for somebody who links to their business on this site through their profile to conduct themselves with some sort of dignity.

alastair

Michael Sheehan, a broker working on the 55th floor of 2 World Trade Center, moved to the stairwell when he realized a plane had crashed into 1 World Trade Center. By the time he reached the 25th floor, he could smell the fumes of fuel that had begun to filter through the ventilation systems of the two buildings.

On the street, standing in a shower of office paper and the siding from the building, he found a piece of paper. It was an airliner's itinerary, listing information about a flight from Boston to Los Angeles.

"I realized then that it was a commercial flight. Then the second plane hit. I realized then it was terror."


"...I noticed in the courtyard that there were valises, suitcases, strewn about the courtyard. There were wallets everywhere, broken glass, and then I noticed that there were airplane tickets." FDNY firefighter John Moribito

FDNY EMT Briam Smith: "So we went up to the 10-10 house...I remember there was life jackets everywhere, the yellow in-flight life jackets, and that the contrast of the yellow against all the gray, you know. It stood out."

King Mob

Bog Warrior wrote: »

There is a lot of supposition in the logic that a passport likely to be inside someone's pocket or bag would be "blown away" before it could be burned.

Not really. There are a hundred and one ways for it to get free and float away. Assuming that it even was in a bag or pocket in the first place.

Bog Warrior wrote: »

I believe that a black box is more likely to be found than a passport.

But the black box could only have been buried under the rubble. Whereas a passport would not necessarily be like wise buried.

The question remains, if the government went to all that bother of faking the passport and placing on the scene where it was found and so on, why didn't they just fake a blackbox? Or a destroyed blackbox that was unreadable?

Bog Warrior wrote: »

You are misunderstanding. I relayed what I have seen in other videos. I don't try to substantiate it. I am telling of another theory I have heard of. Go and research that if you want to. Please try to understand my posts.

So you have no idea if it's true or not, you're just relaying it?
Can you explain the difference between this and making stuff up?

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

I'm not going to waste my time.
You're free to have your beliefs, I'm not trying to make anyone believe anything.
We've been warned for the tone of the discussion already, I personally have had enough of being insulted by you. Should you see your way to apologising for your remarks I'll continue the discussion, until such a time I'm out.
It might also be a good idea for somebody who links to their business on this site theough their profile to conduct themselves with some sort of dignity.

I owe no apology for your inability to understand the distinction between a question and a statement. Should you wish to apologise for making a false accusation, then fire away. I've nothing to hide btw - anonimity might be your thing, but I've no problem in that regard. Oh, and thanks for caring.

Bog Warrior

King Mob wrote: »

But the black box could only have been buried under the rubble. Whereas a passport would not necessarily be like wise buried.

So why wasn't it found buried under the rubble?

King Mob wrote: »

So you have no idea if it's true or not, you're just relaying it?
Can you explain the difference between this and making stuff up?

Absolute nonsense I'm not getting involved in

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

I owe no apology for your inability to understand the distinction between a question and a statement. Should you wish to apologise for making a false accusation, then fire away. I've nothing to hide btw - anonimity might be your thing, but I've no problem in that regard. Oh, and thanks for caring.

Your question was making the assumption that I believed in three different things. Read it back. Then find where I agreed with any of them. I displayed disbelief in the ability of a passport to survive a fireball, I made no definitive statements.
You wanted to know "what flavour of delusion" was "at play".
You were stating that I would be agreeing with one of the things you mentioned, even though you puntuacted it with a question mark.

As for your anonymity, thats your business, but you're not making yourself out to be a particularly likeable person at the moment.

meglome

I could understand if only a passport was found, I think you guys need to stop trusting CT sites. There were lot's of small flammable items found outside the buildings, paperwork, id's, plane seats etc. In a big explosion small light objects will get blasted out... this isn't new or unknown and if you actually look at what was found seems very plausible.

My name is URL

meglome wrote: »

I could understand if only a passport was found, I think you guys need to stop trusting CT sites. There were lot's of small flammable items found outside the buildings, paperwork, id's, plane seats etc. In a big explosion small light objects will get blasted out... this isn't new or unknown.

But only 1 passport.. which happened to belong to one of the terrorists. You have to admit that it's extremely improbable for that to happen.. even if it did happen.

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

Your question was making the assumption that I believed in three different things. Read it back. Then find where I agreed with any of them. I displayed disbelief in the ability of a passport to survive a fireball, I made no definitive statements.
You wanted to know "what flavour of delusion" was "at play".
You were stating that I would be agreeing with one of the things you mentioned, even though you puntuacted it with a question mark.

As for your anonymity, thats your business, but you're not making yourself out to be a particularly likeable person at the moment.

Still here eh? I thought you said were off (more than once).

Nope you still don't get it - let's break it down:

I post details of the plane debris recovered, including paper objects. You dispute the evidence:

If you want to believe that you're welcome my friend.

to which I respond:

Just curious - you have problems with paper surviving the crash, or you have problems with all the plane debris found in the area because the 'truth is there wasn't a plane - but a secret technology ball fired at the building'?

Anything 'assumed' there? Nope - just a question.

Now it transpires that you are in camp A. And no need for the hissy fit and false accusations.

alastair

My name is URL wrote: »

But only 1 passport.. which happened to belong to one of the terrorists. You have to admit that it's extremely improbable for that to happen.. even if it did happen.

It's just a coincidence, and like all coincidences it seems unlikely.

But a hijacker would have 1. had a passport (many on the flight wouldn't have), and 2. Been up at the front of the aircraft, which might well have been an optimum spot for objects thrown from the building. The odds might not have been that great.

Di0genes

My name is URL wrote: »

But only 1 passport.. which happened to belong to one of the terrorists. You have to admit that it's extremely improbable for that to happen.. even if it did happen.

How do you know that was the only passport that was recovered?

meglome

My name is URL wrote: »

But only 1 passport.. which happened to belong to one of the terrorists. You have to admit that it's extremely improbable for that to happen.. even if it did happen.

Why is it improbable, maybe the hijacker had it sitting on his seat? Some of the seat cushions got blasted out and the life vests. Why isn't is improbable that they found other id's?

Better questions again would be how many passports were even on the plane to begin with? did Americans need a passport to fly on an internal flight in 2001? (I believe they didn't but i don't have a link). If the hijackers' passports made up a large percentage of the passports on the plane then it's exactly what you'd expect to find not the other way around.

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

Still here eh? I thought you said were off (more than once).

Nope you still don't get it - let's break it down:

I post details of the plane debris recovered, including paper objects. You dispute the evidence:


to which I respond:


Anything 'assumed' there? Nope - just a question.

Now it transpires that you are in camp A. And no need for the hissty fit and false accusations.

If I misread that I accept culpability. We all make mistakes

As for the discussion after that, you were out of line on more than one occassion.
You continually insulted me as if it was perfectly acceptable for you to do so.
Here's the posts,
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67481755&postcount=101

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67481797&postcount=102

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67482019&postcount=105

Now I'll accept I misread one of your posts (and in retrospect hardly covered myself in glory in the process, I should have been paying attention), but I'm not going to believe for one minute that your behaviour was accpetable in the posts I've linked to above.

King Mob

Bog Warrior wrote: »

So why wasn't it found buried under the rubble?

Because when they where clearing away rubble their main concern was not finding wreckage, but people and later people's remains. And that's assuming it was even still recognisable as a black box after the crash and collapse.

Note how you have left my question unanswered.

If they went to the trouble of faking not only that one passport but all manner of other paper stuff and IDs, why didn't they just fake a blackbox?

Bog Warrior wrote: »

Absolute nonsense I'm not getting involved in

So no you can't distinguish it from making stuff up.

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

Just curious - you have problems with paper surviving the crash, or you have problems with all the plane debris found in the area because the 'truth is there wasn't a plane - but a secret technology ball fired at the building'? Just need to know which flavour of delusion is at play here.

Just felt I should point out that it was the last sentence above that angered me into my initial response.
That is a sentence that is in itself quite insulting also.
I felt I should repost it as Alastair quoted the rest of that post and left that sentence out.

TalkieWalkie

Umm, maybe you all forgot to watch this ? You cant argue against this evidence LOL...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga89OCTf0jE

[/CENTER]

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Umm, maybe you all forgot to watch this ? You cant argue against this evidence LOL...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga89OCTf0jE

[/CENTER]

Yes you can, leaving aside the impossibility of real time, or near real time compositing there's y'know, THE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO SAW THE PLANES.

TalkieWalkie

Di0genes wrote: »

Yes you can, leaving aside the impossibility of real time, or near real time compositing there's y'know, THE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO SAW THE PLANES.

no there isnt

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

no there isnt

Yes Manhattan on a busy tuesday morning around rush hour is just a fecking ghost town.

TalkieWalkie

Di0genes wrote: »

Yes Manhattan on a busy tuesday morning around rush hour is just a fecking ghost town.

Many people saw a plane, not a 737, there was a small plane circling the building. Then boom, there was an explosion.

Don't you think it strange that there is not plane on the live news footage ?

I mean, when you watch it, don't you think, "where is the plane" ?

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Many people saw a plane, not a 737

Maybe because the plane was a 767?

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Many people saw a plane, not a 737, there was a small plane circling the building. Then boom, there was an explosion.

Don't you think it strange that there is not plane on the live news footage ?

I mean, when you watch it, don't you think, "where is the plane" ?

So what everyone in new york saw a small plane fly around the world trade centre, and what when they went home, saw the repeats on tv of a jumbo jet, and thought, "weird thats not what I saw", and simply forgot about it?

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Don't you think it strange that there is not plane on the live news footage ?

I mean, when you watch it, don't you think, "where is the plane" ?

Not really - given that I saw the plane on the live footage.

Bog Warrior

King Mob wrote: »

So no you can't distinguish it from making stuff up.

I'm not sure what you don't understand here. Beans asked whether anyone had a theory, I told him of one I heard. You come along asking me to prove things I never said I could prove.

Now you are asking me to explain the difference between that and making something up??
What's the problem? Do you not know what the difference is?
What kind of twisted logic argument are you trying to involve me in?

TalkieWalkie

Di0genes wrote: »

So what everyone in new york saw a small plane fly around the world trade centre, and what when they went home, saw the repeats on tv of a jumbo jet, and thought, "weird thats not what I saw", and simply forgot about it?

Yes.

Play these simultaneously. Then explain to me why there is no plane in one clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3JYkZXxsfk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60KPOhRgb2Q

#Hmm i balls'd that up. Try again

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

#Hmm i balls'd that up. Try again

The conspiracy strikes again.

King Mob

Bog Warrior wrote: »

I'm not sure what you don't understand here. Beans asked whether anyone had a theory, I told him of one I heard. You come along asking me to prove things I never said I could prove.

Now you are asking me to explain the difference between that and making something up??
What's the problem? Do you not know what the difference is?
What kind of twisted logic argument are you trying to involve me in?

Let's take an example.

The twin towers weren't hit by planes, but giant birds.
I saw a video where a ornithologist described it as a giant bird he was familiar with.
I haven't try to substantiate this.

Now can you please show me the difference between this statement which I've just made up is any way different from yours?

thecommander

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Yes.

Play these simultaneously. Then explain to me why there is no plane in one clip

Ehhh? Different shots used in an edit. Quite simple really.

digme

talkie are you on about the white plane in the top right corner of the at the end of the first video ?

King Mob

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Yes.

Play these simultaneously. Then explain to me why there is no plane in one clip

#Hmm i balls'd that up. Try again

Because the first was showing a live feed and then the station cut away to another live feed at an unfortunate moment.

The second was showing the entirety of the recording of first the live feed.

It's not a wild concept here or anything.

TalkieWalkie

thecommander wrote: »

Ehhh? Different shots used in an edit. Quite simple really.

Same angle, same time. 1 shows a plane, 2 doesnt

digme wrote: »

talkie are you on about the white plane in the top right corner of the at the end of the first video ?

No. There is no plane in the second video.
Was the plane white ? Looks black in most clips. It was a nice sunny day wasn't it ?

King Mob wrote: »

Because the first was showing a live feed and then the station cut away to another live feed at an unfortunate moment.

The second was showing the entirety of the recording of first the live feed.

It's not a wild concept here or anything.

That doesn't explain why there is no plane in the second clip.

thecommander

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Same angle, same time. 1 shows a plane, 2 doesnt

What time in the videos is it?

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

That doesn't explain why there is no plane in the second clip.

Because someone edited it out? Because it's a cruddy lo-res video from an unknown source and unknown generation? Why not ask the explanation for the visible plane in the first clip? The unedited live streams from CBS, CNN, and NBC are available to view on archive.org in somewhat better quality than either of thse clips (I posted the link earlier). The plane is visible in those. As indeed the plane was visible to people on the ground - some of whom videoed and photographed the plane - here's another link to mull over: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/United_Airlines_Flight_175

TalkieWalkie

thecommander wrote: »

What time in the videos is it?

It doesn't actually state in the video, the time.

The smoke patterns are the same and the explosions occur simultaneously. Buildings and boats positions, are the same.

It's the same time in both clips.

King Mob

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

That doesn't explain why there is no plane in the second clip.

**** compression probably.

But lets get this straight. you're claiming that they somehow added in an image into a live feed only to then cut away before the plane hits, then remove said image from subsequent showings?
Why does this make sense to you?