Running Tally

[terrafirma]

Almost 10 years after the fact, I figured it'd be interesting/fun to post the various explanations truthers have come up with to explain the events of 9/11 (while still being unable to produce a coherent alternative narrative). Feel free to add any that you've come across. I know I'm forgetting a ton.

THE PLANES
- They were drones/remotes
- They were holograms
- They were CGI'd in w/ greenscreen
- They were missles
- They were decoys
- They were fly-overs/arounds



THE TOWERS' DESTRUCTION
- Used conventional explosives
- Used thermite/ate/ote/ute/ete (and sometimes -yte)
- Used mini-nukes
- Used space beam

[zappaman]

1. TOWERS DESTRUCTION

-trained monkeys throwing bombs instead of feces

[mrarundale]

3. Oh, where you involved?

Figures!

[zappaman]

4. yes I was

laugh all you want, but my team and I did a pretty good job.
can you believe some people actually think PLANES flew into the towers?
:rofl:

[Old Troop]

7. You're a monkey? Do you have to type an infinite number of times to

write a post?

[zappaman]

8. yes, but

I wasn't always a monkey.
BUSHCO turned me into one after they faked those planes hitting the WTC with that technology they reversed engineered from the space aliens who have the Earth under quarantine.
Fortunately, although I am a monkey and can still type with relative ease.
And I can fling poo too which is exactly what toofers do in a metaphorical sense with their no plane nonsense.

[NYMdaveNYI]

9. SHHHHHH THEY’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW ABOUT THE QUARANTINE..... nt

[zappaman]

10. sorry

Spooked spilled the beans on that one!

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

14. BUSCHCO- The Exploding Beer Keg theory.

Are you suggesting beer was involved?

Perhaps all along the towers were brought down by a overloaded floor of beer bottles after a party. Or maybe kegs of Busch beer were planted at strategic spots in the tower in the outline of a plane....then overheated with Thermic materials until they exploded...

I think you truthers need to get on this new theory.

[spooked911]

73. is that your personal theory?

or did you see someone post it?

Otherwise, why such mockery?

[mrarundale]

2. "The controller, confused, asked, ''Who's trying to call me?''"

on the ATC transcript for flight 11. This is followed by the hijackers threat... C'mon, people...!!!
also, ABC recently filed an FOIA request to the NYPD for 9-11 footage because after the first expl...I mean "hit", no one but the NYPD (and I'm sure military) was allowed in the airspace. So where did the "footage" come from??? Why is it such low quality? I don't know from blue screen/cgi or whatever, but the plane footage is fake and it did not come from the networks themselves. Find out where that footage came from and ask them how they did it...

Most of us do not know how to demolish buildings, including me, but thermite just seems too labor intensive; why bother with charges, etc....when you can just blow everything up? The Bojinka guys were supposedly going to use gelignite or nitroglycerin and a Casio watch rigged up as a detonator..Whoever blew the buildings up didn't have to get a permit!!! So, I doubt they cared about protocol other than collateral damage (non Silverstein buildings). It seems they could have also taken advantage of gas lines and other fuel sources connected to the building, but I do not know how that would work...

[zappaman]

5. "but I do not know how that would work"

seems like you could apply that to just about everything regarding 9/11...

[NYMdaveNYI]

6. "Why is it such low quality? [...] the plane footage is fake [...]"

Well, the video of the AA11 impact was filmed on an amateur camera, by those French filmmakers; and as for the network footage of UA175 impact, it was 2001, do you remember having crystal-clear HDTV in 2001? I don’t.

Your logic is flawed.... Oh, why am I surprised..... You’re a troofer.

[mrarundale]

11. They were NYU film school graduates

(supposedly)...and it doesn't show a plane anyway..there is NO footage of flight 11 hitting a building in NYC. Seems kind of odd, doesn't it?

Low quality footage was normal in 2001? you've got to be kidding. (sometimes I think you guys are) Here is a pre-2001 video of ice build-up on the WTC antennae...look how high the quality is.
I COULD resort to ad hominem attacks like you guys do, but I don't have to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qTrED-qOVo

You guys can fling the feces, but you can't answer my questions:
Why is there no footage of a passenger airline hitting the North Tower?
Where does the televised footage come from?
Why is it such low quality compared to what was possible before 2001 as shown above

[NYMdaveNYI]

13. “Why is there no footage of a passenger airline hitting the North Tower?"

wrong

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk


I alluded to this footage in my previous post.

hurrrp durrrp duuuurrrrrp

[immune]

16. Maybe I need to borrow your glasses.

I don't see a plane, just an explosion.

[zappaman]

17. of all the posts you have made

NOT ONE has demonstrated the slightest bit of understanding of the most basic facts of that day.
This post, however, has set a new low.
Really sad, Immune.

:-(

[Make7]

18. Firefighter Joseph Casaliggi: "I watched the plane crash into the north tower."

 

FIREFIGHTER JOSEPH CASALIGGI:

On the morning of September 11th we were operating a box up on Church Street Near Canal. There was an odor of gas in the area. While we were out operating, we heard the first plane coming in. I turned around and I watched the plane crash into the north tower.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110430.PDF

[immune]

19. Your tag line is appropriate here.

"We see what we want to believe" - Robert McNamara, The Fog of War

But its hard to make some people believe things they don't see when they're looking straight at them.
Sorry, the video doesn't show what its purported to show.

[Make7]

23. Battalion Chief Joseph Pfeifer: "I saw it hit."

 

CHIEF JOSEPH PFEIFER (FDNY)

   Q. Your name, sir?

   A. Joseph Pfeifer, Battalion Chief, Battalion 1.

   Q. Sir, on September 11, 2001, could you tell me the events that took place that day?

   A. Okay. I was working the night before in the 1st Battalion, and sometime about 8:15 or so in the morning we got a call to Lispenard and Church for a gas leak in the street. We were there for a while checking on the gas leak, and then we heard the loud roar of the plane come over, and we turned around and we looked and we saw the plane coming down, heading south towards the Trade Center, and made a direct hit on the Trade Center.

   Q. You actually saw it hit?

   A. I saw it hit. Within about ten seconds after that or so I gave the first report on the radio and transmitted a second alarm for a plane into the Trade Center...


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110138.PDF

[immune]

26. I looked Joseph Pfeifer up and this is all I found

relating to 9/11:

11/9/2001] Others also appear to have been aware of the imminent danger. Fire Chief Joseph Pfeifer, who is at the command post in the lobby of the North Tower, says, “Right before the South Tower collapsed, I noticed a lot of people just left the lobby, and I heard we had a crew of all different people, high-level people in government, everybody was gone, almost like they had information that we didn’t have.” He says some of them are moving to a new command post across the street. http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=joseph_pfeifer_1

"Like they had information that we didn't have." I wonder what kind of information that could have been.

I don't know where you got your quote since you didn't provide a link, and apparently yahoo doesn't know about it, either.

[Make7]

28. Firefighter Thomas Spinard: "... it just impacted the building, building one."

 

FIREFIGHTER THOMAS SPINARD

   I just came on that day during a 24. I relieved the chauffeur probably about 8:20 or so. We got a box on Church and Leonard of an odor of gas. So Engine 7 and Ladder 1, Battalion 1, responds. It turned out to be a false alarm.
   As we were at the box, a plane passes us overhead real low. You could hear it; you could feel it. We turned around, and it just impacted the building, building one. With that, everybody got on the rig. We started driving.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110445.PDF

[defendandprotect]

76. Wow ... amazing ... and the lobby looked like it had been "bombed" ....

according to other firemen there -- evidently do to the explosions in the basement!

[defendandprotect]

75. And, yet one more guy who was with the French video group ... !!

[defendandprotect]

74. Except this guy was with the questionable French Video group ....!!

[mrarundale]

100. you mean Casaliggi the ACTOR??

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1244265/
or is it "Casalissi", as the "interview" also spells his name, lol...you know, the interviews that took the FDNY THREE YEARS to forg... I mean "release"....

from his imdb page:
Filmography
Jump to: Actor | Producer | Self
Hide Show Actor (2 titles)
1992 FTL Newsfeeds (TV series)
Dr. Sam Greinechs (1994-1996)
1991 Mathnet (TV series)
Ballplayer
– The Case of the Unnatural (1991) … Ballplayer

[SDuderstadt]

101. Now Mr. A is accusing FDNY of...

forging the oral histories???

Fucking unbelievable.

[Make7]

103. When he isn't linking to them himself that is...

 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=298151&mesg_id=298158
 

[immune]

104. What point are you trying to make?

That he linked to FDNY for a reference at some point in time? Did you think the department is monolithic and that everyone there speaks with one voice?

[Make7]

106. See post #83.

 
Post #83
 

[mrarundale]

105. What do you think of Casaliggi's resume, SDUD?

don't you think his prior history as an actor for a newservice is in the least bit relevant?

[defendandprotect]

114. Just another one of those 9/11 acting coincidences ... !!!

:)

[NYMdaveNYI]

20. Maybe I need to borrow your crack pipe.

What do you MEAN you don’t see a plane?

[immune]

22. What do you mean,

what do I mean? I said exactly what I meant. I replayed that damn thing a dozen times and didn't see a plane. I HEARD a plane ... or at least something that sounded like one. Then the blast. Maybe you can find some better footage .... oh wait.

[ColesCountyDem]

21. See the plane here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6B7g6mt4Gk&feature=related

[immune]

24. Yep, I see

something, but I sure couldn't identify it as a plane. I'd have to call it a UFO (as in unidentified and flying and object)

[SDuderstadt]

25. This is why no one takes "immune" seriously...

present him with eyewitness testimony and he jabbers that they "saw what they wanted to see".

Provide a film clip of the plane hitting and he tries to pretend it was a "UFO".

Provide evidence of the large amount of plane debris found in and around the scene and you get something like, "all that was planted".

Fucking unbelievable, insulting and disrespectful to the families.

I would like to propose that "immune" be simply ignored or only discussed in the third person. There is evidence that even the strongest and most irrefutable proof bounces off of him and ricochets, hitting other "truthers" who have a similar degree of cognitive impairment.

Time to boycott "immune".

[NYMdaveNYI]

27. So...

do we block him?

[SDuderstadt]

30. Nope...

just ignore him and comment on his stupid posts to each other.

[immune]

29. Disrespectful to whom?

NEW YORK CITY, NY (Oct. 26, 2004)(Updated Sep. 11, 2009) - An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 today announced the release of the 911 Truth Statement, a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur. The Statement supports an August 31st Zogby poll that found nearly 50% of New Yorkers believe the government had foreknowledge and "consciously failed to act," with 66% wanting a new 9/11 investigation.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

I think the 50/66% has gone up substantially since 2004.

So you're saying that if a member of your family was murdered, it would be disrespectful to you to find out who did it and see that they paid the penalty for it? Wow.

Boycott away. I'll miss your scintillating commentary ... like "WTF are you mumbling about now?"

[zappaman]

31. Disrespectful to anyone who lost someone that day

and any one with a functioning brain.
I don't expect you to understand the following since you have trouble understanding the simplest of things, but...

In a research paper written in 2008, Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule conclude that theories supported by 9/11 truth movement members "typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy...those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology..."
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585
Also
Of the people surveyed, those in lower education and income brackets were more likely to express disbelief in government accounts, rather than those in higher income/education brackets.
I'm guessing the lower education bracket covers you?

[SDuderstadt]

34. With respect to "immune"...

I think it's more likely he suffers from an "amputated" epistemology and some degree of the Dunning/Krueger effect.

[SDuderstadt]

32. What's really interesting here is that "immune"...

posts something here that actually undermines his stupid claims without even knowing it, unless, of course, he thinks we're all so stupid that we believe the family members want an investigation into why the Bush administration possibly allowed the attacks to happen, even as "immune" disrespects the families by suggesting no planes hit any of the buildings.

Then, of course, he inserts one of trademark stupid strawman arguments:

So you're saying that if a member of your family was murdered, it would be disrespectful to you to find out who did it and see that they paid the penalty for it? Wow.

And, of course, I never said anything remotely like that. Fucking unbelievable and precisely why no one should reply to any of the goofy bullshit he posts.

[LARED]

33. Immune is quickly become a byword,

For what remains to be seen.

[immune]

35. You want eye witness testimony?

Here's a ton of it from fire, police, maintenance workers, AND family members detailing their harrowing experiences on September 11, 2001.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

What do family members really want? Here's an example:

Michelle Little – Sister of Firefighter David M. Weiss, FDNY, Rescue Company 1, Midtown Manhattan, lost his life trying to rescue others from the World Trade Center the day of the attacks. Co-founder Unite in Peace.

•Press Conference, National Press Club 9/12/06: "I am here today to call for the facts of September 11, 2001 to be released to the American public. ... The time is now to call upon all the Americans to lobby local media to cover this story and to pressure members of Congress to support legislation by reopening this investigation. We must hold those involved accountable for this atrocious tragedy. My brother, David, and ten brothers from his unit were murdered on 9/11. For them and for all of our mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, aunts and uncles that died that day, it is imperative for their lives to know the truth." http://www.911blogger.com/node/2824

Your misrepresentation of "what I believe" is no less than I'd expect, but your cocky misrepresentation of what is wanted by family members of those who died that day is beyond the pale.

[zappaman]

36. LOL

but in a sad way...for you.

[SDuderstadt]

37. Simple question for people inclined to...

take "immune's" nonsense seriously:

How many family members are "no-planers"?

[immune]

38. From the same link as above.

Frank A. DeMartini – WTC victim. Architect and WTC Construction Manager, North Tower, 88th floor. Demartini first worked at the World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the terrorist truck bombing in 1993.

•Video interview 1/25/01: "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door. This intense grid ­ and the jet-plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting." http://video.google.com

•Editor's note: The Boeing 767-200s that impacted the Twin Towers on 9/11 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated. The maximum takeoff weight of the 707 is 15% less than the 767.

Frank A. DeMartini – WTC victim. Architect and WTC Construction Manager, North Tower, 88th floor. Demartini first worked at the World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the terrorist truck bombing in 1993.

[SDuderstadt]

39. For the life of me...

I don't understand why "immune" believes that pointing out DeMartini's comments are responsive to a question of how many family members are "no-planers". By the way, the towers DID absorb the impact of the jetliners...that's why they didn't collapse immediately. It was the fires that brought them down.

[immune]

40. Fires? Then explain this:

The appearance of Edna Cintron, looking out of the hole in the North Tower caused by the airplane impact, raises doubts about the existence of raging fires at the impact point hot enough to substantially weaken steel, which according to the official account caused the collapse of the Twin Towers. Note also the near absence of smoke and flames.

Meanwhile, THIS was going on in the lobby:

Capt. William Walsh – WTC survivor. Currently, Captain, FDNY. On 9/11, was Lieutenant with Ladder Company 1.
•Documentary film, 9/11 by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. Segment reproduced on September 11 Revisited at 6:40: His impressions on entering the lobby of WTC 1 (North Tower) approximately 3 minutes after the first plane had hit it and before the second plane hit WTC 2 (South Tower). "The lobby is about six stories high and the lobby looked as though a bomb had exploded there. All the glass was taken out. There were 10 foot by 10 foot marble panels, that were once walls, loose from the walls of the Trade Center. Lights were hanging down. The lights were, I believe, off. Unfortunately there were dozens of people in the lobby. They were in a contorted position. They were black in color; moaning; just writhing around. http://www.911revisited.com

[SDuderstadt]

41. More CT bullshit from...

"immune".

Too funny.

[terrafirma]

42. You obviously have no clue as to "scale"...

Any picture of the towers that is so close as to identify an individual is obviously zoomed in quite a bit. What that picture doesn't show you are the floors above Edna.

And please explain... if things were so tolerable inside the buildings, why was she standing in a gaping hole 100 stories above the plaza?

[SDuderstadt]

43. It should also be noted that Edna...

as well as her husband, died that day, which makes "immune's" post all that much more despicable.

[immune]

44. Obviously its a zoomed photo,

but if there's a problem with my scale, its no worse than your math.

Please explain why if, as you claim, she was standing 100 floors above the ground level plaza and the building was 110 stories tall and the plane hit below her (from the 92nd to 98th floors) .... what do you imagine is happening on the 10 to 12 floors above her if something else didn't take place to make it happen?

Looking at the damage, its doubtful that she's above the 98th floor and probably lower than that. There are no flames pouring out the hole she's standing in, so how could it be, if the plane caused such an inferno that the steel/iron/aluminum/office furniture melted, there's no fire or even smoke where it hit?

Who claimed things were tolerable inside the building? One would assume she was looking for a way out of there. Tragic doesn't even begin to cover it.

[SDuderstadt]

45. Since Cintron is standing on the north side of the tower...

we can assume "immune" has difficulty comprehending the concept of "momentum".

[immune]

47. Flames shoot outward.

If there were flames, they'd be pouring out that hole, like this:

[terrafirma]

51. You mean like this?

http://www.debunking911.com/genfires.htm

Fire also moves. It has this weird tendency to go where the fuel is. It's how your campfire will go out if you stop putting wood on it.

[terrafirma]

46. Forgive my rounding.

I forgot you truthers are quite the literal bunch.

It appears that she was standing on the 94th or 95th floor. My point is that it was high up. To go standing at the edge of a building 94 or 95 stories (is that better) would imply that condistions inside the building were pretty damn unbearable.

And YOU are the one claiming that is no smoke or fire. YOU are claiming steel/iron/etc. "melted" (no scientific study even remotely suggests this.) Google some images of the towers that day. You'll see entire floors in flames.

To use a photo of this woman to claim that the fires weren't bad at all is the very definition of disengenuous.

[zappaman]

48. disengenous and

despicable.
2 words that describe "Immune's" posts perfectly.
I would also add the word...incoherent.

[immune]

49. Are you saying its

a fake photo? Now that's disingenuous.

No, what you mean is no GOVERNMENT study remotely suggests melted metals, despite the plethora of photo evidence and witness testimony to the contrary.

[terrafirma]

50. WOW

... not quite sure how you extrapolated that I was suggesting the photo is fake.

In regards to the "melting" metal, you guys seem to be under the impression that's the only way the buildings could've collapsed. But here in the real world, it's widely accepted that steel will lose strength when heated. Nothing needed to melt.

[immune]

52. Meanwhile, in the lobby ...

Capt. William Walsh – WTC survivor. Currently, Captain, FDNY. On 9/11, was Lieutenant with Ladder Company 1.
•Documentary film, 9/11 by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. Segment reproduced on September 11 Revisited at 6:40: His impressions on entering the lobby of WTC 1 (North Tower) approximately 3 minutes after the first plane had hit it and before the second plane hit WTC 2 (South Tower). "The lobby is about six stories high and the lobby looked as though a bomb had exploded there. All the glass was taken out. There were 10 foot by 10 foot marble panels, that were once walls, loose from the walls of the Trade Center. Lights were hanging down. The lights were, I believe, off. Unfortunately there were dozens of people in the lobby. They were in a contorted position. They were black in color; moaning; just writhing around. http://www.911revisited.com

Three minutes after the plane hit. No plane hit the lobby. Explain it, please.

Read the link I posted earlier. You don't need to take my word for anything.

[SDuderstadt]

53. Apparently "immune" doesn't understand how...

flaming jet fuel could spill down an express elevator shaft and blow out the lobby.

It's rather comical.

P.S. Since the bulk of "immune's" posts demonstrate an utter lack of even the most basic understanding of Logic, reason and science, not to mention the fundamental facts of the events of that day, I invite others to refrain from replying to him directly and, instead, just laugh at his posts and discuss them among ourselves. I doubt there's much chance that rational people will be taken in by his goofy bullshit anyhow.

[immune]

56. Spilling down?

In three minutes?

[SDuderstadt]

57. For someone who apparently thinks...

the towers fell in free-fall acceleration in a matter of seconds, it baffles me that "immune" is now arguing it would take minutes for flaming jet fuel to spill down an express elevator shaft.

Fucking unbelievable.

[NYMdaveNYI]

59. I find it really funny how

when I referenced the Naudet documetary earlier in this thread, immune passed it off as faked (claiming its footage of AA11 hitting WTC 1 was fake), only for HIM to later reference the documentary to try to make the case for “bombs in the lobby.”


So, I’m guessing that because immune is using the Naudet film as FACT, because he sees it as AUTHENTIC (not a product BushCo doctoring), and because the film SHOWS American Airlines flight 11 hit the tower, he now ACCEPTS that there WAS a plane!


baby steps...... baby steps.....

[immune]

60. When did I claim that film was faked?

I merely said I couldn't tell what the flying object in the film WAS. I could ASSUME its a plane, but everybody wants proof of everydamnthing and I don't have proof of that.

[NYMdaveNYI]

61. Here’s your goddamn proof

http://911review.org/brad.com/wtc_plane_debris.html



Oh, let me guess, this was staged?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[zappaman]

62. yes, it could have been staged

as I have mentioned, trained monkeys could have easily been planting debris while everyone was in shock.
"Immune" is once again demonstrating his immunity to facts, logic, common sense and, quite possibly, sanity.

[NYMdaveNYI]

64. Ah! I should have seen the symbolism of his DU handle,

immune to logic.

[NYMdaveNYI]

66. Yes, trust me,

I’m a New Yorker, we see burnt, crumpled, asbestos-covered turbine jet engines the size of refrigerators on the sidewalks ALL THE TIME. Ya’ get used to that here.

He may be right.

[immune]

63. Prove it to this guy ....

Kurt Sonnenfeld : Exclusive interview
9/11 FEMA videographer at Ground Zero goes public

As official videographer for the U.S. government, Kurt Sonnenfeld was detailed to Ground Zero on September 11, 2001, where he spent an entire month filming: "What I saw at certain moments and in certain places ... is very disturbing!" He never handed his 29 tapes over to the authorities and has been persecuted ever since. Kurt Sonnenfeld lives in exile in Argentina, where he wrote "El Perseguido" (Persecuted). His recently-published book tells the story of his unending nightmare and drives another nail into the coffin of the government’s account of the 9/11 events. Below is an exclusive interview by Voltaire Network.

Applicable snippet from interview:

"We are asked to believe that all four of the “indestructible” black boxes of the two jets that struck the twin towers were never found because they were completely vaporized, yet I have footage of the rubber wheels of the landing gear nearly undamaged, as well as the seats, parts of the fuselage and a jet turbine that were absolutely not vaporized. This being said, I do find it rather odd that such objects could have survived fairly intact the type of destruction that turned most of the Twin Towers into thin dust. And I definitely harbor some doubts about the authenticity of the “jet” turbine, far too small to have come from one of the Boeings!"

http://www.voltairenet.org/article160636.html

[NYMdaveNYI]

65. Dude, I just plugged that

into Google; you ripped it verbatim.

Like Dubya in Decision Points.

You, and many others like you, just CTRL-C CTRL-V whatever senseless truther bullshit you see on the internet, and keep the echo chamber of ignorance alive.

-----

If you want a goddamn witness account, you’ve found one; I was there, I heard the first plane go in, and watched the second plane go in from my apartment in Battery Park.

[immune]

67. I don't dispute for a minute that you saw

a plane go in. I don't argue the "no-plane" theory, although some people continually say I do. Determining the specific dimensions and details about that "plane", however, well yes, I do have a problem or two with that. In the few seconds you (or anyone else) had to see it and at the high rate of speed it was moving, wouldn't absolute identification be virtually impossible?

But the echo chamber isn't so empty as it used to be and it isn't exactly trailer trash and derelicts demanding a new independent investigation. Its Veterans, police, lawyers, firemen, scholars, architects, engineers, pilots, eye witnesses, families of victims ... hell, even artists and magicians. And I'm sure I left a few out. What we DON'T know is who it is that's determined to block such an investigation.

And yes, I do a lot of cutting/pasting to back up my points unless its purely an opinion. I hope that's not a tremendous inconvenience for you.

[SDuderstadt]

68. Fucking unbelievable...

apparently "immune" believes the jetliner sized and shaped holes in the side of the towers can't be positively identified. Of course, the videos perfectly size up with the scale of a jetliner, many more direct eyetnesses actually saw the jetliners crash into the towers and there was a rather large amount of jetliner debris found in and around the crime scene.

But, apparently that is not enough to offset the personal incredulity of "immune". When you take the inability of someone like immune to comprehend shorthand abstractions, are you surprised that "immune" has so much doubt about the 9/11 Commission and MIST reports that he apparently dispensed with even reading them altogether?

Too funny.

[immune]

69. Someone asked you

earlier today if you're ten. Its wierd but I have actually known ten year old kids who spoke of/to/at people they didn't like in the third person. They couldn't spell as well as you, though, and didn't know as many big words, like MIST.

[SDuderstadt]

70. It's "wierd" (sic) that "immune" does not recognize...

typos or when someone declines to waste time interacting with him personally.

Too funny.

[immune]

72. Did I mention those ten year olds

who weren't good spellers ....? I guess some of us never do get much better at it, but most of us do grow up to think and act like adults.

[zappaman]

71. "They couldn't spell as well as you, though, and didn't know as many big words"

Like "wierd"?
How old are YOU?
Your inability to understand anything leads me to believe you are under 10.

[zappaman]

54. "You don't need to take my word for anything"

As if anyone would!
:rofl:

[terrafirma]

55. A plane hit the building.

Not sure why you would think the lobby would remain in pristine condition. People inside reported feeling as though the building was going to topple over from the momentum of the impact.

As for the condition of the people, there were also reports of jet fuel (on fire) pouring down the elevator shafts. Elevators crashing into the lobby floor. I would expect to see injuries of that sort throughout.

[immune]

58. You still haven't gone to the link

and read the first hand accounts of people who were there. First hand accounts. I could post them for you one at a time, but it wouldn't alter what "you would expect to see". If you won't look, no one can make you see what you don't expect to see ... which is the same as assumption.

[defendandprotect]

79. Plane hit top of building and you think lobby would look "bombed" ... ???

Why would anyone think that?

Did you see any damage to any other part of the building except where the "plane"

sliced thru steel like a hot knife thru butter?

Again, the jet fuel would have burned off in ten minutes -- if there were any

fires in the elevators more than likely the result of bombs going off in building.

[terrafirma]

82. Jesus....

Throw a stone into a pond.

Does the wave created suddenly die out or does it radiate from the source in an ever expanding circle?

Do you know how energy works? Were the towers equipped with some magical buffer every 10 floors to prevent shock waves from traveling down them?

Here I thought you had me on ignore....

[defendandprotect]

85. You're saying it wasn't a "plane" it was a stone?

The building was built to withstand not only one commercial jet fully loaded

striking the building -- but multiple strikes.

Now, explain again how an aluminum plane cuts thru steel like a hot knife thru butter ....

please ...

[defendandprotect]

78. Not from the temperatures that would normally come from a fire like this ...

Jet fuel -- kerosene -- burned off in first ten minutes -- and firemen confirm

no threat -- "FIRE CONTAINED" --

The impact was at the top of the building having nothing to do with anything below

that --

but again fires could not have burned hot enough to effect the steel --

as all history of steel buildings show.

ONLY something like explosives and THERMITE could have caused the damage and the

COLLAPSE/DEMOLITION we saw --

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

87. You mean you're posting in the 9/11 forum and you're not familiar

with either of those two facts? Wow!

Jet fuel -- KEROSENE -- burns off in ten minutes.

And the info on what the firemen called for has been posted many times here --

i.e., that upon reaching the site of the impact, they signalled that they only

required two lines to put it out -- that "the fire was contained."

Now -- I've replied ONLY because a level of ignorance such as yours should be

exposed.

But I've also ALERTED on your post --

[terrafirma]

88. Ignorance?

Do you not understand that there were tons of flamable materials in the towers?

Not just jetfuel.

And your lies on "two lines to put it out" meme have been debunked time after time and yet you still consider to parrot them. Why is that?

[defendandprotect]

89. Your post has been "removed" yet you persist in calling me a liar -- ?

All science makes clear that the "tons of flammable materials in the towers"

could not burn hot enough to melt steel --

has never happened before in a steel tower -- or do you think WTC was only one to

have flammable materials in it? -- and has never happened since!

:think:

Again, jet fuel is kereosene -- and burns off in 10 minutes --

And

your lies

on "two lines to put it out" meme have been debunked time after time and yet you still consider to parrot them. Why is that?

Again, the info re the firemen has been posted here at DU-9/11 many times --

if I happen to come by it again I will do you the favor of posting it.

But -- also note that you seem to have learned little about civility --

What you're making clear is that your only debate is incivility --

You may also wonder why I don't put you on "ignore" -- ?

As with one or two others at DU, I think it is better to be aware of what they are saying --

even if inaccurate -- than to be unaware.

[zappaman]

90. oh go ahead and add another to your "ignore" list

you must have most of DU on there by now.

[immune]

91. I guess jet fuel did this, too

William Rodriguez – WTC survivor. An American Building Maintenance employee for twenty years, responsible for inspection and maintenance at the World Trade Center, who held the master key for the stairs. He was the last person to leave the building on September 11 and has been credited with saving many lives. For his efforts, he received the National Hero Award from the Senate of Puerto Rico. Founder, Hispanic Victims Group.

•Article 6/24/05: Regarding an explosion in the sub-basement of the World Trade Center North Tower on 9/11, prior to any airplane impact. "When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking," said Rodriguez, who was huddled together with at least 14 other people in the office. ...

"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."

But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"

David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries.

"He was burned terribly," said Rodriguez. "The skin was hanging off his hands and arms. His injuries couldn't have come from the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below. I don’t care what the government says, what scientists say. I saw a man burned terribly from a fire that was caused from an explosion below.

"I know there were explosives placed below the trade center. I helped a man to safety who is living proof, living proof the government story is a lie and a cover-up. ...

"I disagree 100%with the government story," said Rodriguez. "I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower.

"And I contacted NIST previously four times without a response. Finally, this week I asked them before they came up with their conclusion that jet fuel brought down the towers, if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces and didn't have any answers." http://www.arcticbeacon

[terrafirma]

95. Steel doesn't have to melt

in order for a building to collapse.

Do you understand that?

And I'll save you the trouble of having to search through the forums (even though it was less than a month ago that we saw you yet again distort and twist Orio Palmer's words).

http://www.debunking911.com/fire.htm">Please read this and explain why you think the fires on the lowest impact floor (78th) of that tower are indicative of the inferno throughout the rest of the building.

[defendandprotect]

108. Ah ... the "licorice" theory -- a fire on the 78th floor made licorice of steel on 54th floor -- ?

and on the 34th floor -- ? and 24th floor -- ?

And on and on down the towers?

And presume the heat from the fire on the 78th floor of the North and South Towers

also made licorice of the steel in building #7 -- !!

Don't know why we haven't thought of that before -- !!!


:eyes:

[defendandprotect]

81. The fires were obviously quickly going out -- which is seemingly why they rushed

to bring the buildings down almost immediately --

[SDuderstadt]

86. We can only hope that...

D&P is not a teacher somewhere.

[Make7]

83. You'll take the word of someone that says an American Airlines plane hit the north tower? ( n/t )

[ColesCountyDem]

92. I wear glasses, and even *I* can see that it's a plane, for pity's sake!

It's c-l-e-a-r-l-y an airplane. There is no "it's something", etc., JUST an airplane and nothing BUT an airplane.

:eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

93. This is the kind of...

nonsense we get from "immune" on a regular basis.

[ColesCountyDem]

97. He doesn't know that 'denial' isn't a river in Egypt, then?

Got it.

[defendandprotect]

77. That's the French video which is suspect for many, many reasons ... !!!

[ColesCountyDem]

94. 'Suspect' by whom, and for what reason(s)?

Just because it clearly shows an airliner hitting the tower and that messes up you 'truthers', doesn't make it 'suspect'.

:eyes:

[defendandprotect]

109. The film itself is suspect because of the unlikely angles -- you would

have to find the September Clues video at YouTube --

I think that's where the questions about the videos are addressed.

And there are lots of them.

It is "suspicious" -- or another one of those 9/11 coincidences again -- that this

French team was there in the street with firemen.

Don't remember all the details of the challenges to it -- you'll have to look for

the video. I'm curious about it and wouldn't mind seeing it again. Maybe one

day later this week I'll look for it. I may have in YouTube faves? But you can

probably find it -- if you're interested.

No one could see a "plane" in that video -- if someone highlights something moving

in the sky and says it was a plane -- too many people accept it.

Most of the "planes" in the videos shown look faked.

[ColesCountyDem]

115. I'm sorry I asked.

I was looking for fact-based objections....

:eyes:

[defendandprotect]

118. An "angle" is a "fact based" objection .... the video looks fraudulent ....

If you're truly interested in the subject and the challenges to it,

then I think at the least you would be familiar with "September Clues" -- !!

Especially since you seem to know very little about the entire subject of 9/11 -- !!

YouTube ... September Clues --

[SDuderstadt]

119. More unintentional irony from...

D&P.

[ColesCountyDem]

127. Exactly what does "looks fraudulent" mean?

It looks genuine and candid as hell, to me.

:eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

128. "looks fraudulent" means...

"It contradicts my conspiracy theory".

[ColesCountyDem]

129. I'm beginning to see that mindset at work in this thread....

Some of these folks never met a conspiracy theory they didn't like, I'm starting to realize.

[SDuderstadt]

130. Bingo...

from time to time, you might even see my trademark question addressed to one of them:

"Again I ask...is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy, that even YOU won't embrace it?"

[ColesCountyDem]

141. It blows my mind that billions of people can see live TV ...

... broadcasting gargantuan airplanes traveling at hundreds of miles-per-hour crash into two buildings, cause MASSIVE, out-of-control fires, and yet these folks wonder why the buildings 'really' collapsed.

Just blows my mind!

:eyes:

[defendandprotect]

132. It means that the ANGLE would have been impossible ....

Again, if you really want to know about the photographic analysis of the French

Naudet video, think you should watch September Clues -- YouTube has it.

PLUS Simon also discusses many other interesting aspects of Naudet's connections

before and after the filming. It's been a while since I watched it -- and I'd like

to watch it again -- but can't right now.

[ColesCountyDem]

138. It can't be impossible, if they recorded it, now can it?

Logic is always useful in these situations, friend.

:eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

139. I have to warn you that...

Logic just kinda bounces off D&P, in much the same manner she believes the planes should have bounced off the towers.

[ColesCountyDem]

140. Just ONCE, I'd like for these 'truthers' to explain...

... in their own words and in a logical, coherent and concise manner exactly WHY they believe what they do. I am sick to death of being referred to videos and websites created by OTHER people who don't know shit from apple butter about metallurgy, fire science, explosives, demolition, civil engineering, etc. .

[terrafirma]

96. Care to share those reasons?

Or is it true because you used a bunch of "!!!" at the end...?

[defendandprotect]

111. See this post ... it's just above actually....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=300974&mesg_id=301618

[mrarundale]

102. oh wow I've never seen that before

because I have an earlier version and the "plane" looks a little, uh, less "defined" shall we say, but even in your "enhanced" version it still doesn't look like a passenger plane.

Wouldn't you think in a big city like NY that there would be more than ONE "amazing coincidence" of a shot? and please don't trot out the one wing dot from the "havel" video that was "discovered" much later (after people started to figure things out)

[terrafirma]

107. It's funny

how you expect that there'd be more eyewitnesses to an event that no one expected to happen, but ignore all the eyewitnesses who DID see the second plane hit.

I have no doubt that if there were more shots of the 1st hit, you'd point to that as proof of a conspiracy as people had to have had foreknowledge of the attacks.

[defendandprotect]

110. Really, I think the discoveries about the Pentagon "no plane" pretty much

zoom holes into the two "planes" at the WTC --

And, the witnesses to the Pentagon "plane" make clear that if a plane is sent flying

near or over a building -- while explosions go off simultaneously -- they naturally

think that the "plane" hit --

Until they find out that other witnesses saw the plan fly off and over the Pentagon!

And until they find out that other important witnesses saw the plane take a flight path

which would have made it impossible for the "plane" to have hit the light poles --

and still other reports on the altitude of the plane which also makes it impossible for

the "plane" to have hit the lightpoles.

There is so much evidence against any "plane" at the Pentagon that it strongly argues

that one plane was probably flown around the WTC towers -- maybe coming in one way and

then coming in from another direction -- and then down to DC to the Pentagon for the

last episode in the act!

[SDuderstadt]

113. And D&P continues to embarrass...

DU with her absurd claims.

Fucking unbelievable.

[terrafirma]

117. Just found some of the transcripts from the planning stage...

CHENEY: So here's where we're at with the implementation of the attacks. We have the four targets. We know we're telling the public that planes hit them. The fourth plane is easy. We're just gonna bury a seat and maybe a piece of window from a plane in a hole somewhere in PA. We'll say the passengers took it over and prevented it from hitting the White House or something, sacrificing themselves for others. Public will love it!

RUMSFELD: Dick, that's awesome! You're brilliant. And the other three?

CHENEY: We just need one more plane.

RUMSFELD: .... but you said "four targets". We've explained the fourth, but what about the first three?

CHENEY: Think outside the box, idiot! We just need ONE plane to fly around the towers while explosions simultaneously go off in them, then have that SAME plane make a bee-line for DC and do the same thing at the Pentagon.

RUMSFELD: Well... okay, but.... Maybe that would work for the first hit, but by the time the second plane is supposed to hit, there's probably gonna be millions of people watching live and on TV. How can we be sure it won't be seen flying away?

CHENEY: We can't. But where's the fun in doing something that makes sense?

RUMSFELD: I just think it makes more sense to fly the planes into the buildings if we're going to tell the public that planes flew into the buildings...

CHENEY: FUCK NO MAN!! Not only are we gonna use just one plane, but I've talked with some of the folks at Industrial Light & Magic, and they're working on some "live shots" for New York that I think are gonna be quite the hit. It's gonna make The Phantom Menace look like a Chaplin film.

RUMSFELD: Again... that just seems a little excessive. Just fly the planes into the buildings.

CHENEY: Again... you're a fucking moron. That's just what they expect us to do.

RUMSFELD: Who's "they"?

CHENEY: THEY are whoever I feel they are. That's all that needs to be said.

RUMSFELD: .....

CHENEY: Good. Glad we're in agreement. Now I need to go poo.

[defendandprotect]

120. And you're positive that what you were watching was LIVE TV and not video ... ?

RUMSFELD: Well... okay, but.... Maybe that would work for the first hit, but by the time the second plane is supposed to hit, there's probably gonna be millions of people watching live and on TV. How can we be sure it won't be seen flying away?


:evilgrin:



I'd also recommend Simon and September Clues to you again -- YouTube --

And the many challenges to the idea of four planes being simultaneously hijacked from our

airports. And to the theory that it would be easier to fly actual planes into the towers!

The WTC towers were built to withstand not only one fully loaded commercial jet flying into

them, but multiple jets. If they didn't immediately bounce off.

[SDuderstadt]

121. "if they didn't immediately bounce off"...

just when you think D&P cannot possibly say anything more absurd than her personal best, she proves you wrong.

Oy.

[terrafirma]

122. LOL

First off, thanks for ignoring the millions watching LIVE that I said. By "live", I mean actual, living, breathing, people standing in the streets of Manhattan, staring at the smoking North Tower.

No one saw a plane buzz the South Tower and continue north along the island or bank right over Brooklyn/Queens or left over Jersey. NO ONE!

And your suggestion that a plane travelling at 500+mph should "immediately bounce off" a building speaks not only to your lack of credibility, but also the lax grip you have on science, physics, and reality.

[defendandprotect]

123. Let's get back to the video .... how do you know you were watching LIVE?

As for the "millions watching LIVE in the streets" -- certainly at various points

in these events there probably were great numbers of people on the streets.

Certainly not ALL of them claim to have seen either the first or second "plane" strike.

Again -- many at the site downtown saw NO PLANE --

Many witnesses at the Pentagon -- including a CNN journalist and film crew -- NO PLANE.


No one saw a plane buzz the South Tower and continue north along the island or bank right over Brooklyn/Queens or left over Jersey. NO ONE!

Many witnesses saw NO PLANE hit the towers -- they merely saw explosions.

The idea of one plane flying around in the case of the WTC would have been to FILM the

plane's approach -- and use it later -- and, needless to say, they would have cut the

plane's departure.

All science makes clear that no aluminum plane is going to cut thru steel like a knife thru

butter.

Again -- the absolute evidence for NO PLANE at the Pentagon argues against the plotters

either having hijacked four commercial jetliners or flying them into any buildings.

[SDuderstadt]

124. D&P's absurd claim that a CNN reporter...

which happens to be Jamie McIntyre, saw "no plane" at the Pentagon, is directly contradicted by the transcript of McIntyre's report. More quote-mining at its worst, courtesy of D&P.

[terrafirma]

126. Were you surprised

...when Billy Joel's car went into a house?

...how a tornado can impale a 2x4 with a piece of straw?

Do you understand the concept of momentum? Potential and kinetic energy?


And do stop changing your theories. Or at least do a better job of keeping them straight in your own head. You originally stated the "One Plane" would do fly-overs/bys at the towers, then head down to DC to do the same thing at the Pentagon. Now you're saying the purpose was to just get some file footage because you realized how ridiculous your ideas are and are back-peddaling.

[defendandprotect]

131. Evidently you missed ALL of the steel towers which have never

collapsed due to fire -- either BEFORE 9/11 -- or AFTER 9/11 -- ????

Try replying to that --

Neither a car nor a piece of straw allegedly hit the WTC --


Meanwhile ...

And do stop changing your theories. Or at least do a better job of keeping them straight in your own head. You originally stated the "One Plane" would do fly-overs/bys at the towers, then head down to DC to do the same thing at the Pentagon. Now you're saying the purpose was to just get some file footage because you realized how ridiculous your ideas are and are back-peddaling.

There was no change in theory --

Yes -- I did say that one plane may have been used to fly around NYC WTC towers and DC --

but that does not PRECLUDE the plane circling the WTC from having been filmed while they

were there either flying in from one direction or another.

That simply completes the observations -- expressed by others, btw --of what might have been

done to create video which allegedly shows a "plane" approaching either tower.

Again -- no change in theory -- it's just filling you in on another aspect of the challenges

to 9/11 -- which were developed long ago.

Now .... how about telling us how you knew you were watching LIVE TV and not a video?

[terrafirma]

133. Try replying...??

You're right. No piece of straw or car hit the towers.

FUCKING PLANES DID!!!

[defendandprotect]

134. Ok ....

there is one basis for getting put on "Ignore" ... and that's being disingenuous.

Bye --

[terrafirma]

135. ???

Saying planes hit the towers is disingenuous???

You've "threatened" the ignore bit before and yet here you are, doing it to me yet again....




THAT is disingenuous.

[SDuderstadt]

136. LOL...

Let's see a show of hands...who is NOT on "ignore" from D&P?

If the criteria is being "disingenuous', shouldn't D&P put herself on "ignore"?

[terrafirma]

137. "Disingenuous"....

Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[zappaman]

125. "If they didn't immediately bounce off."

Fuckingunbelievable.

[LARED]

15. there is NO footage of flight 11 hitting a building in NYC

Really? you must be kidding.


Thank goodness, another completely uninformed truther shows up.

[mrarundale]

98. OK Lared

show me the footage of a passenger jet hitting the north tower...and use the original from the Naudet not the later "enhanced" version...

[defendandprotect]

80. What's really interesting is to figure out why NORAD was AWOL on 9/11 ... while four planes

were allegedly being hijacked ---

what are the stories for that?

Eh, let's see -- four simultaneous training exercises being run by military --

one in fact, which just happens to be adding the additional confusion/coincidence

that it dealt with "hijacked planes flying into skyscrapers" -- !!!

One of the soldiers hearing the reports asks openly ... "Are we really supposed to

believe this is coincidence!?"

And where were the NORAD planes ... ?

Well, they had been taken off to Canadian border -- just in case the Russians wanted

to drop in -- :rofl:

And to some of our Southern States -- evidently Mexico might be thinking of attacking?


The allegedly hijacked planes also flew over any number of our military bases where jets

were available to chase them down -- no such think happened -- anywhere!

[mrarundale]

99. cuz there weren't any hijacked planes

that's why. The NORAD thing was my original tip off.

[defendandprotect]

112. Well remember waiting that day for NORAD ....!!! "The Hound of the Baskervilles" ....???

The dog that didn't bark .... !!

Hope I got ole Sherlock's stuff straight --

Actually I prefer Sherlock's brother --

ever see that one by Mel Brooks -- with Gene Wilder and Madelaine Kahn?

:)

[SDuderstadt]

116. For the record...

I call D&P the "Merry Misinformer" for her command performance of one CT myth after another. Since she believes that every AFB has fighter jets fueled, armed and crewed just sitting on the tarmac, she keeps blissfully insisting that NORAD scrambled no fighters on 9/11, despite the fact they were scrambled from Otis and Largely ANG bases.

Fucking unbelievable.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

142. Other: