9/11 Attacks

Soveriegn

housemap wrote: »

Well I guess they should have built the twin towers out of some thermite charges , then they would still be standing, amirite

The buildings failed at exactly the point the planes hit, were the pilots of each plane told what floor the charges were planted and to hit those exact floors ? what if they missed there would be some explaining to do then.

The perimeter steel columns would have needed to be cut by the charges , these columns were effectively the window frames for all the offices, how come nobody noticed the hundreds of thermite charges attached to their window frames.

And did building 7 fail at some exact point ? or many specific points ? because it seemed to me that it fell like a house of cards.

Didnt you see that or do you constantly walk around with a blindfold on ?

housemap

Soveriegn wrote: »

And did building 7 fail at some exact point ? or many specific points ? because it seemed to me that it fell like a house of cards.

Didnt you see that or do you constantly walk around with a blindfold on ?

I didn't say anything about building 7
why don't you answer the question.

Soveriegn

housemap wrote: »

I didn't say anything about building 7
why don't you answer the question.

Why wont you answer mine ?

housemap

Soveriegn wrote: »

And did building 7 fail at some exact point ? or many specific points ? because it seemed to me that it fell like a house of cards.

Didnt you see that or do you constantly walk around with a blindfold on ?

A skyscaper fell on it and it burned and failed.

A more pertinent question would be why wasn't building 7 hit by a plane ?

Why hit the two towers with planes and demolitions and just demolish 7 ?

Did they run out of planes :pac:

namloc1980

Soveriegn wrote: »

Given the fact that the chairman stated that the Pentagon and the FAA hampered the investigation by delivering misstatements, you can assume that evidence provided by pentagon and FAA officials in the commission report are misstatements.

Do you deny this ?

Here he is stating it on film...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzrv-e37Es8

And here is a wiki statement...

Keeping in mind, this is the chair and vice chairman stating this...




While I understand you are a proud man and dont wish to loose a debate... I ask you to consider this information.

Where in that video does he state that the FAA and Pentagon provided mis-statements????? I'm still waiting for the examples

Soveriegn

housemap wrote: »

A skyscaper fell on it and it burned and failed.

A more pertinent question would be why wasn't building 7 hit by a plane ?

Why hit the two towers with planes and demolitions and just demolish 7 ?

Did they run out of planes :pac:

Yeah, the passengers overthrew the hijackers.

Thats why it got shot down

namloc1980

Soveriegn wrote: »

Yeah, the passengers overthrew the hijackers.

Thats why it got shot down

Do you find the deaths people in hijacked aircraft funny?

Soveriegn

namloc1980 wrote: »

Where in that video does he state that the FAA and Pentagon provided mis-statements????? I'm still waiting for the examples

I didn't say it's in the video, it's in his book quoted here on wiki

The book was released on August 15, 2006 and chronicles the work of Kean (Commission Chairman) and Hamilton (Commission Vice-Chairman) of the 9/11 Commission. In the book, Kean and Hamilton charge that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail," and write that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission#Work_of_commissioners_after_the_commission_ceased_its_functions

Soveriegn wrote: »

Given the fact that the chairman stated that the Pentagon and the FAA hampered the investigation by delivering misstatements, you can assume that evidence provided by pentagon and FAA officials in the commission report are misstatements.

Do you deny this ?

Here he is stating it on film...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzrv-e37Es8

And here is a wiki statement...

Keeping in mind, this is the chair and vice chairman stating this...




While I understand you are a proud man and dont wish to loose a debate... I ask you to consider this information.

Soveriegn

Not only was the commission report destined to fail due to lack of time and financial support but the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation.

WHY IN THE FUKKING WORLD WOULD THIS HAPPEN ?

COZ THEY ARE HIDING THE FACT THAT THEY HAD A HAND IN ORCHESTRATING THE EVENT.

SIMPLES

OBVIOUS

namloc1980

Soveriegn wrote: »

I didn't say it's in the video, it's in his book quoted here on wiki


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission#Work_of_commissioners_after_the_commission_ceased_its_functions

Did you read the book? What was the nature of the alleged mis-statements?

housemap

NIST investigated the collapse of the buildings , it's well documented, the only people who spout these alternate theories are trolls, the CT forum by the looks of things is a beacon for them, I do not believe for a second that Soveriegn and similar posters here actually hold these beliefs, they just copypasta from other forums and chuckle to themselves about the trollercoaster, anyway have fun I was just having a look I won't be staying.

Oranage2

Charlie Sheen suports these claims, you can harldy call the highest paid sitcom actor a troll by putting his career in danger by making these claims can you?

All you have to see it WT7 collapse when buildings WT3-WT6 stood up and had a lot more damage to them.

Soveriegn

namloc1980 wrote: »

Did you read the book? What was the nature of the alleged mis-statements?

Yes I did, several times.

Did you read my bullsh!t book ?

Soveriegn

You lads seem to be forgetting something.............................>>>>>>

Soveriegn wrote: »

Given the fact that the chairman stated that the Pentagon and the FAA hampered the investigation by delivering misstatements, you can assume that evidence provided by pentagon and FAA officials in the commission report are misstatements.

Do you deny this ?

Here he is stating it on film...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzrv-e37Es8

And here is a wiki statement...

Keeping in mind, this is the chair and vice chairman stating this...

The book was released on August 15, 2006 and chronicles the work of Kean (Commission Chairman) and Hamilton (Commission Vice-Chairman) of the 9/11 Commission. In the book, Kean and Hamilton charge that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail," and write that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials

While I understand you are a proud man and dont wish to loose a debate... I ask you to consider this information.

namloc1980

Soveriegn wrote: »

You lads seem to be forgetting something.............................>>>>>>

Looks like you have. You STILL haven't provided examples of the alleged mis-statements?? So can you or can you not provide these examples?

Soveriegn

namloc1980 wrote: »

Looks like you have. You STILL haven't provided examples of the alleged mis-statements?? So can you or can you not provide these examples?

The report is misstatements.

The vice and chairman stated it.

Have another look.

The book was released on August 15, 2006 and chronicles the work of Kean (Commission Chairman) and Hamilton (Commission Vice-Chairman) of the 9/11 Commission. In the book, Kean and Hamilton charge that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail," and write that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials

Soveriegn

namloc1980 wrote: »

Looks like you have. You STILL haven't provided examples of the alleged mis-statements?? So can you or can you not provide these examples?

It's like this.

If I lie to you, and you don't know the truth, but I told you I was lying. How can you provide me with the truth ?

namloc1980

Soveriegn wrote: »

The report is misstatements.

The vice and chairman stated it.

Have another look.

Where are the examples? Can you provide them?

Yitzhak Rabin

housemap wrote: »

NIST investigated the collapse of the buildings , it's well documented, the only people who spout these alternate theories are trolls, the CT forum by the looks of things is a beacon for them, I do not believe for a second that Soveriegn and similar posters here actually hold these beliefs, they just copypasta from other forums and chuckle to themselves about the trollercoaster, anyway have fun I was just having a look I won't be staying.

If you continue to make statements like that, certainly not.

Pay attention to this paragraph of the charter everyone

Please don't use sweeping generalisations which indirectly attack or belittle other posters here. Posts which are insulting to those who believe conspiracies / the mainstream, for example, may be considered to be insulting to other posters, and as such will not be tolerated.

Soveriegn

namloc1980 wrote: »

Where are the examples? Can you provide them?

I robbed a shop at gunpoint today, sorry, thats a misstatement.

Whats the truth ?

You dont know !

All you have are misstatements..

You are asking an impossible question and you know it. You loose

But here are the misstatements

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.9-11commission.gov%2Freport%2F911Report.pdf&rct=j&q=9%2F11%20commission%20report&ei=VhSMTM3QNYOQjAek3qCSBg&usg=AFQjCNHGlh1FX-h5OMtRGzOky5zJfmQnbQ&sig2=kUuFuI0fDGoEHceLfjZOWg&cad=rja

namloc1980

Soveriegn wrote: »

I robbed a shop at gunpoint today, sorry, thats a misstatement.

Whats the truth ?

You dont know !

All you have are misstatements..

You are asking an impossible question and you know it. You loose

But here are the misstatements

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.9-11commission.gov%2Freport%2F911Report.pdf&rct=j&q=9%2F11%20commission%20report&ei=VhSMTM3QNYOQjAek3qCSBg&usg=AFQjCNHGlh1FX-h5OMtRGzOky5zJfmQnbQ&sig2=kUuFuI0fDGoEHceLfjZOWg&cad=rja

Oh dear. You haven't a clue what you're on about. You can't even answer a question and are just making it up as you go along. :pac::pac:

Soveriegn

namloc1980 wrote: »

Oh dear. You haven't a clue what you're on about. You can't even answer a question and are just making it up as you go along. :pac::pac:

Nice deflection

Soveriegn

So Kean and Hamilton charge that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail," and write that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation.

Soveriegn

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

But why did the pentagon and the FAA hamper investigations ?

Were they hiding something ?

Surely they wanted to get to the truth ?
[/B][/SIZE]

Not that the obvious should need to be stated, but...

The 9/11 commission report slated various federal and state bodies over their response to 9/11, and was clearly going to point the finger of blame from early on in their investigation. Some government bodies tried to cover their arse and consequently gave the commission investigation the runaround. Read the Vanity Fair transcripts of NORAD's reactions on the day and try to pretend that they were capable of taking a role in any 'conspiracy' - they were in absolute chaos.

9/11 Senior Council John Farmer paints the picture in a 2009 interview:

BF: Interesting, hold the thought there, John…. (commercial break) …John, you were speaking of, before the break about some of the things that you were told and the public was told and the Commission was told that were, quote, "almost entirely and inexplicably 'untrue'"; you refer to the fact that, uh, the claim that they could have 'taken out' Flight 93 if they had wanted to, that they had within their sights, and so on and so forth- why would- why do you suspect some of these stories would have been told, that were so wildly inaccurate, as you describe them?

JF: I think there was an effort to, um, uh, to make the government look 'better' than it was that day- to make the national command structure, um, seem, uh, like it was more in control than it was in those critical moments, and I think in doing that, one of the unfortunate byproducts was that they obscured some of the really important lessons from that morning, among which are- you know, how critical decisions are actually made in a crit- in a cataclysmic situation like that, and the essential estrangement of the top levels from the people on the ground who actually had to improvise the national defense- was important, because we saw replicated a few years later in Hurricane Katrina- completely different kind of event, uh, in fact not a surprise at all, something that had been planned for, for years- but when it actually hit, the same kind of dynamic occurred, where people on the ground in New Orleans were waiting for word from the upper levels of government and there was a disconnect in communications and difficulty communicating, they didn't have the authority to make critical decisions, and I think one of the things that comes out of this study that I think is important, is the imperative that we actually plan to deal with these crises the way they're actually experienced, as opposed according to some, uh, you know- organization chart.

BF: Right. And we seem to have re- we constructed an organizational chart after 9/11, in response to 9/11, and then as you point out in the book, it doesn't seem we paid much attention to it when it came to Katrina- so it's unclear that we even learned anything from 9/11, frankly- and I wonder- the uh, effectiveness of the Commission- you guys did not have subpoena power early on, and how badly do you think that ended up crippling the final report that was released by the 9/11 Commission?

JF: Well, let me just say that I think the report is, uh, extremely accurate, and- and sets forth the facts of 9/11. And we actually did point out in the report the discrepancies between the accounts that were given and what we actually found.

alastair

Oranage2 wrote: »

Charlie Sheen suports these claims, you can harldy call the highest paid sitcom actor a troll by putting his career in danger by making these claims can you?

All you have to see it WT7 collapse when buildings WT3-WT6 stood up and had a lot more damage to them.

If Charlie Sheen says it's true then I've no choice but to believe.

Oh wait...

Now - tell me this; What was the distinctive difference between the construction of WTC7 and WTC 3 or 4?

seannash

Oranage2 wrote: »

Charlie Sheen suports these claims, you can harldy call the highest paid sitcom actor a troll by putting his career in danger by making these claims can you?

All you have to see it WT7 collapse when buildings WT3-WT6 stood up and had a lot more damage to them.

demon,i mean orange have you looked at any of the debunking videos out there?

Soveriegn

alastair wrote: »

Not that the obvious should need to be stated, but...

The 9/11 commission report slated various federal and state bodies over their response to 9/11, and was clearly going to point the finger of blame from early on in their investigation. Some government bodies tried to cover their arse and consequently gave the commission investigation the runaround. Read the Vanity Fair transcripts of NORAD's reactions on the day and try to pretend that they were capable of taking a role in any 'conspiracy' - they were in absolute chaos.

9/11 Senior Council John Farmer paints the picture in a 2009 interview:

So would you suggest this is good enough reason for people to want a new investigation ?

Maybe that would be a waste of time ?


Lets just forget about it

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

So would you suggest this is good enough reason for people to want a new investigation ?

Maybe that would be a waste of time ?


Lets just forget about it

No good reason at all - the commission highlighted claims and reality - the facts are clear from their report.

I'm sure you'd like to forget about it given that you have once again highlighted the fact you don't really know all that much about the events of 9/11 at all. If you're going to advocate an alternative 'conspiracy theory', it's best to learn what the existing understanding actually is.

Soveriegn

alastair wrote: »

No good reason at all - the commission highlighted claims and reality - the facts are clear from their report.
.

Love you baby.

You're right, there is no good reason.

The book was released on August 15, 2006 and chronicles the work of Kean (Commission Chairman) and Hamilton (Commission Vice-Chairman) of the 9/11 Commission. In the book, Kean and Hamilton charge that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail," and write that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials