An Attempt to Uncover the Truth About September 11th, 2001

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by Binkie

the letter "S"

"C" rather.

[Icarian Decoding]

Huh. You've got me convinced, except for a few points:

- Possible Missile - http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm
But then again, it might be too small.

-The faint red lettering, really doesn't look like lettering. To me it looks like rust or burn marks.

-That landing gear that you showed. The after-9/11 picture really doesn't look like the landing gear. It looks as if half of it is missing.

[ExistentialDisorder]

photos of the pentagon wreckage aftermath have never really been in short supply. Tho those particular photos that Binkie linked are rather obscure. Especially that first one. They just happened to take a shot of the "crash site" from that particular angle, blocked by the watch tower, or whatever that thing is. Not to mention the rest of the shots don't show the pentagon and could be shots of wreckage from any number of other crash sites. Regardless, as I said, aftermath shots aren't hard to come by. It's the actual impact shots, and video/images leading up to it that don't seem to exist anywhere. Actually they do exist. The problem is they were all confiscated. The survailance videos of surrounding businesses were all seized by the feds and to date have never been released or returned to their owners. There were five stills "leaked" to the media, supposedly from a camera just to the right of the wall that was hit by the "plane". Five images with extremely bad editing. The two most important points to note about those images is that #1, the explosion was added in (i could tell you that just by looking at them), and #2, it's quite clear that something was erased from the sky above the pentagon in the one image prior to the "explosion."

If there's nothing to hide, then why confiscate all the footage of the crash? And why doctor the few photos that are deliberately leaked to the media? ... and further more, why get an amateur to doctor them? I could have done a much better job myself. Give me a photo of a building - any building - and i'll make it look blown up.

There's no question that the street lamps were taken out by a plane, or at least something with the wingspan of a plane. Yet, why aren't there any signs of the wings or the vertical tail fin hitting the wall? And why were there two holes in the wall, one larger than the 2nd, neither big enough to be from a plane?

Why THAT particular side of the building? Why go through having to spin around and hit that wall - the only wall that had been reinforced just prior to the attack, and had the least number of occupants in the building - when they could have just as easily hit from any other side, most-likely taking out many more people and causing a hell of a lot more damage.

On top of all that, it's not possible that the man accused of piloting flight 77 could actually have been the pilot.

"It is doubtful that the best trained fighter pilots could have executed the maneuver that supposedly crashed a 757 into the Pentagon. It required making a tight 270-degree turn while descending seven thousand feet, then leveling out so as to fly low enough over the highway just west of the Pentagon to knock down lamp posts. After crossing the highway the pilot had to take the plane to within inches of the ground so as to crash into the Pentagon at the first-floor level and at such a shallow angle that an engine penetrated three rings of the building, while managing to avoid touching the lawn. And he had to do all of this while flying over 400 mph. Quite a feat for a flight school flunky who had never sat in the cockpit of a jet!"

Setting asside the pentagon, and even the actual collapse of the two towers (a collapse that defies logic and physics), there's still way too many issues that don't make sense, don't add up and just smell way too fishy.

*- How is it that 6 of the highjackers are still alive and well? 7 names were wrong, 6 of them still alive, one having died a year before the attack.

*- Why haven't the blueprints for the towers ever been released? Why wasn't NIST allowed to view them durring their investigation?

*- Why did FEMA outright lie about the structure of the buildings in their report? They make claims that are completely bogus and contradict actual photos of the building's construction.

*- Why was an imposter used in the first video tape that was released after 9/11, which has someone posing as Bin-Laden claiming responsibility for the attack, instead of Bin-Laden himself? If he's got balls enough to put his real face on all the other videos, why not this one?

*- Why is it that just six weeks prior to the attack, the WTC came under one sole ownership, which was a first in its history? On top of that, why was there a special claus written into the insurance plan specifically outlining airplane attacks that would refund the owner the entire value of the center, and a release from the 99 year lease?

*- Why were so many political figureheads and daddy rabbits warned not to be anywhere near new york the day of the attack?

*- Why weren't jets immediately scrambled when it became clear that 4 planes had deviated from their course? And when finally they were scrambled, nothing of the protocol was followed, and they were launched from bases hundreds of miles from where they needed to be, while jets from bases much closer sat and did nothing. Even jets that were already in the air off the coast of Long Island were told at first not to do anything, then later were sent further out to sea "to look for other planes". Those that were scrambled, from places like Ohio, only flew at a quarter of their top speeds.

And all of that's just not even scraping the barrel...

[CptSternn]

Yeah, if thats the best picturs you have of a 747 crash, then that is weak. Plus, once again, 100% of yer links are from goverment sites. Ever try some subjectional information?

Try using the net to google news sites, not just the tripe the bush admin spews from its PAID information sites.

I have seen various plane crashes. In fact, spend last week watching avation distasters week on National Geographic. They had the worse airline crashes, hijackings, bombings, etc. all week. They showed footage of crash after crash, plus showed the cranes and trucks hauling away debris from crashes.

You showed us pictures of maybe a pick-up truck full of scrap metal and a burned building. I'm not claiming to be an expert here, but by watching the footage of dozens of other wrecks and seeing what was left behind vs. the handful of scrap metal which supposedly was a massive airliner, well, I'm still not convinced.

And another question, as mentioned - local news crews were there within minutes. No large wreck footage. Hell, there wasn't even a picture of a body even though hundreds were supposedly on the plane. Which raises another question. I mean, I have relatives and friends right now on the fire brigade. We have had plane crashes here and I have heard the storeys of crashes in the states. The one thing they all tell of is the fact body parts are strewn everywhere, sometimes up to a mile away from the crash. Once again, in the pictures you show us, we see a small pickup truck bed amount of scrap metal, I mean guys in ties are carrying it in one hand - thats not a 747, and I don't see any bodies, blood, or luggage anywhere.

Thats something not only myself, but mates in the area were talking about while watching it live.

Also, there has only been 1, thats right, 1, because the WRIC news did an interview with him a few weeks after, who claimed he saw the plane fly in. There were no 'witnesses' to the crash, just a few who heard a plane, but no eye witnesses.

But either way, if thats the best crash wreckage pictures you have of a plane wreck, thats VERY weak. You have been on a plane before and seen the size of one? Your telling me thats all thats left? Once again, don't take my word, google it.

http://images.google.com/images?q=pl...m=10&hl=en&lr=

http://images.google.com/images?svnu...=airline+wreck

I mean, look at every other airline wreck and the mess left behind.

I could argue more dodgy points to the whole storey, but of all the various red light arguments that 'dont add up', I find this one to be the most prevelant as it is the only one with such a lack of evidence pilots, firefighters, and others can't even believe it.

Oh yeah, and the whole 'remotes will be added after 9-11' is shite. Once again, look up those dates I gave you in the last post. They have been written about time and time again, in books, and trying to claim they were just added after 9/11 is shite.

Ever see Die Hard 2? Remember the scene where the terrorists crash the plane using the remote? They go into a whole diatribe on the exact system. It wasn't hollywood magic, they based it on the actual technology in use.

And once again you didn't even touch on the fact that they claim the planes just disappeared for 20-40 minutes. I mean, if thats true, just turning off a transponder makes you invisible, then why do they catch all those drug smugglers flying around the country? And not just across the border - those lads flying tonnes of pot from Kentucky to Cali that get popped once every few years by NORAD. Those lads in small planes get caught but yer telling me a passenger jet airliner can become invisible? 20 minutes is a long time. I mean, missles travel much faster than jets, so if they can't track a jet, then how is it they could track and stop a missle say launched off the coast from a sub?

To think they didn't know exactly where those jets were 100% of the time is just ignorant. They can read the date of a dime from satellites, they can track UFO's, but for some reason a pair of half trained ametuer pilots were able to beat DARPA, NORAD, the FAA, and the whole US government and 'hide' an airliner, while in American airspace, for almost a good part of an hour without anyone seeing they were flying towards the heart of DC, even after multiple 9-11 calls, which are immediately tracked by GPS satellite, were made from the plane.

Hah, weak.

[ExistentialDisorder]

Metal does not vaporize, even in an explosion like that. Especially when you have 600 tons of it, which is the approximate weight of a 757. Those photos do not show 600 tons of wreckage.

And there were not "hundreds" of people on Flight 77, or any of the other flights. There weren't even a hundred. Flight 77 had 55 passengers - including 5 hijackers - and 6 crew members. That's 29% of its total capacity. None of the flights had more than half of their total capacity. Minus crew and highjackers they had less than half. Which is extremely uncommon durring a busy tuesday morning business day.

Usually, when flights don't have enough passengers, they're combined with other flights. It saves on costs.

[Binkie]

Icarian,
a tomahawk's wingspan is 8 feet. Unless it did two fly-bys on the same course (meaning it had to fly through once, take out one row of lamp poles, then circle around and take out the other row), it couldn't have reached all four lamp poles, two of which were more than a hundred feet apart from one another.

Ex,
likewise I can take video footage of a tower and insert a plan flying into it and exploding. Doesn't automatically mean that any footage or photo diplicting such is a fabrication. At low resolution, often times fake things look real and real things may look fake. As someone who had worked in digital imaging for years, I don't see any obvious signs of anything being doctored.

Who knows why this stuff is still classified. Who knows why Presidential Daily Briefings from the Vietnam conflict 40 years ago are still classified.

As for the wing reminents, check out that video of the F4 Phantom being flown straight into a fortified wall. The only part of the wings that didn't vaporize were the tips, and that's because those tips spanned beyond the wall. Everything else that hit "atomized," including the rest of wings. Key difference between an F4's wings and a 757's wings is that in the Boeing, fuel is stored in them, making them ten times more likely to vaporize upon harsh impact.

That quote about needing to be superman to fly a plane like that is countered by actual quotes from commercial pilots who map out just how capable it is, in fact, to steer a plane into the Pentagon like that.

As for those "hijackers that are still alive," that was found out to be a giant myth a while ago: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers_flt_11.html
Note that the father of the two al-Shehri brothers is a man by the name of Mohamed al-Shehri, who hasn't seen two of his eleven sons since long before the 9/11 attacks. Their names? Waleed and Wail. Their pictures match those released by the FBI. Coincidentally a man with the same name and birthday [as Waleed] came out after 9/11 in Riyadh to say he wasn't one of the hijackers. He also told authorities his passport was stolen. Several folks did this, and an arab paper wrote up a story on it. BBC took that story and printed it. No one offered pictures of these "innocent men" who's identities were stolen. In fact the faces on the passports have been confirmed by the father of both missing sons.

Interior Minister Prince Nayef of Saudi Arabia, later in 2002 after these "still alive" stories ceased a year ago (September 2001), confirmed that 15 of the 19 hijackers were of Saudi nationality. Not as in, their passports were of Saudis, but the hijackers themselves turned out to be the people that are now dead. This is confirmed. Find me an legitimate news article about any of the hijackers still being alive after October of 2001. You will find none, because these people who came out of the woodwork claiming that they were on the list of hijackers were found to just have the same name. Some of the "still alive" people didn't even share the same name spelling as those identified by the FBI. Example: "Walid al-Shri" (still alive) vs "Walid al-Shari" (6 years missing/dead).

If you want the blueprints to the WTC, you need to inquire to the Port Authority of New York to obtain them. You better have a good reason for wanting them though, as people don't just hand out blueprints to buildings to whomever. Floorplans maybe, but not blueprints. The American Society of Civil Engineers got ahold of them actually (though it did take a long time), and used that information in the NIST report. Of course, if you have no official business looking at the WTC blueprints, you'll never get your paws on them because there's too much concern people will use them these days to file law suits.

Where did FEMA lie in their report about the structure of the building?

Bin Laden is known to have doubles for one. Secondly people try to discredit it with the fac that he wears a watch in this video, which many analyists have seen on him in photos and videos prior.

Provide examples of who was told not to be anywhere near new york that day.

Only a few bases even had jets avaliable for scrambling. NORAD's responsible for giving the order to even scramble jets for an intercept. But in order for them to do this, they have to be notified of flights deviating in the first place, which is done through land lines between the FAA and NORAD. The calls cames late and contained errornous information. Despite this, F-16s that were scrambled from Virginia at 9:30 reached the Pentagon 19 minutes later. Flight 77 crashed into the building at about 9:38 or so. Since Flight 93 turned off the transponder, most of the F-16s were redirected to Washington airspace to protect the White House. Shortly before 93 crashed, several F-16s were pursuing it. Why couldn't they be flying at 15 hundred miles an hour? Pilots weren't allowed to fly supersonic for a domestic intercept prior to 9/11.

[Binkie]

Sternn,
I'm sorry, did you see ".gov" or ".mil" at the end of any of those websites? They're maintained by private citizens. Keep trying to bullshit yourself, cause it ain't working on me. Those aren't government sites. I don't even know where the hell you got that idea. Oh wait, nevermind, I do. You read "Pentagon Research" and thought that meant it's an official Pentagon website about military research. Visit www.pentagonresearch.com before you ATTEMPT to attack sources next time.

Wow, everything that you saw must be EVERYTHING there is. I invite you to watch that video of the F4 Phantom being flown at 490 mph straight into a fortified wall. It atomized upon impact (i.e. no real debri). Not to mention I linked to an image of a plane crash already in which you can not identify any plane debri.

You're still not convinced? Ah-ha! I'm not trying to convince YOU. Debunking your crap for others to see, maybe, but not trying to convince you of anything. You, Sternn, believe what you want to believe and you don't accept logic or facts, even when they're specifically presented to you upon request.

You need to scroll back up and view that link I posted in response to Icarian... you know what? Nevermind, you'll never do it if I ask you to.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE F4 CRASH TEST

So there it is.

Not to mention I posted a picture of a plane crash (I'm mentioning this for the second time in this post - maybe you'll be inclined to look at this time) in which no large debris were left. Nothing was left, in fact, to identify that a plane had even hit.

Only one eyewitness eh? Here's a list of witnesses that all gave statements saying they saw a plane strike the Pentagon (you can google their statements respectively):

Meseidy Rodriguez
Ken Ford
Steve Patterson
Sergeant Maurice L. Bease
Mike Dobbs
James S. Robbins
Levi Stephens
Firefighter Alan Wallace
David Marra
Noel Sepulveda
Phillip Thompson

Thanks for looking up 747 plane wrecks. It was a 757 that hit the Pentagon, but of course you knew that because you're very familiar with 9/11. But since you're incapable of scrolling up and looking at what I've posted before, I'll show you an image of a plane wreck involving no landing attempt:

http://911review.com/errors/pentago...8_feb1602_1.jpg

Identify the large plane debris, Sternn.

It's "shite," huh? Oh I saw your date. It corresponds... to military aircraft. Not civilian. Oh and, yes, I've seen Die Hard 2. They uh... transmitted the wrong parameters for the ground though. Planes though the ground was higher that it actually was, thusly when they came in to land, the planes crashed. Had nothing to do with remote controlled landings. You need to go rent that one again. My god, you can't even get movie plots right.

The planes disappeared for 20-40 minutes, yes. It's called, "Turning off the transponder in the cockpit." There are other ways of figuring out where planes are through other systems, hence why they catch smuggles, but it's not just a "Bing! There he is!" method. In US airways, it's a process of elimination to find the plane.

DARPA? What in the FUCK are you talking about? Or are you still high on this remote control bullshit?

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by Binkie

http://911review.com/errors/pentago...8_feb1602_1.jpg

Replace that link with:

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon..._feb1602_1.jpg

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Binkie

As someone who had worked in digital imaging for years, I don't see any obvious signs of anything being doctored.

Really? You did? Once again, you throw out 'I for years did this...which makes me an expert'. So far yer a self professed expert on middle eastern customs, religion, and history. Same goes for Ireland, most of Asia, and Russia. You still never explained how you are an expert on any of this. In fact, I remeber you saying yer still under thirty and have never been to a university and live at home with parents, which once again brings me around to the question - what makes you an expert on digital imaging?

I myself have a portfolio of work, movies I worked on, videos I have done, actors/bands/directors I have worked with on this very subject. And like my extensive university degrees, which I have to show, I can display these if need be.

So I ask, what 'years' of digital experience do you draw upon that allows you to look at grainy, reduced online video and 'immediately' be able to tell 'oh thats a fake'. I'm telling you, with yer extensive knownledge on Iraq, and yer ability to spot bogus video even when viewing reduced online quality, they REALLY need you are the pentagon! Yer an asset to the united states of america!

I mean, I watched the same footage on the Discovery special and the Channel 4 'Conspiracies?' series, and none of the experts they had could fully conclude any of that crap you put out there. But somehow, you can immediately look and tell us.

So please, don't stop, tell us. This time, back up yer statements with WHERE you get your experience from.

I mean, was it Lucasarts? An expert like yerself that knows so much about digital imaging could sure be a help there as well. I know when I watched the new Star Wars trilogy, I could see how god-awful those computer effects were. I mean, the same with the Lord Of The Rings!

As a working professional in the field who is currently working on 2 contracts doing video editing for tourism companies, PLEASE let me know what you know as I could benefit from your vast knowledge here!

Let us know WHY you are such an expert who can discount that whole video, all those experts, and the half dozen users here with the simple one line 'I have worked with digital video for years and I know'.

[Binkie]

Really? I stated I'm an expert rather than just establishing that I'm familiar with the trade and practices from experience?

Don't forget movies too, Sternn. Add that to the list. I'm an "expert" on those too, because I know the premise of Die Hard 2 when you went and fucked it up. I guess when you're wrong at so many things and I'm right, it does kinda make me look like an expert. Can't blame you for thinking of me as such. I'm kinda flattered.

Oh, little man, you have such a keen memory of the things I say. First off, what is my age? When did I say I was under 30? Quote me. I said I never went to a University? When? Quote me. I said I live with my parents? When? Quote me. Oh wait, no, YOU said that in an ignorant statement about shit you have no clue about. Boy, since you know all these things that I've never stated, I'd say you're professing to be an expert on me! Hell, you know more about me than I do! Fact of the matter is, you don't know shit about me. You don't even know what I do for a living or how long I've been doing it.

BTW, I don't give a flying fuck about your portfolio or any of your degrees, so spare me of the self-promoting plugs. I'm not impressed and I don't give a shit. I'm mean, Christ, last I heard you don't even have a career in the industry. You were working in a bike shop and playing bodyguard at a bar to bring home your bread and butter. I assume since you don't talk about anything else that you still do the latter for a living. Awesome use of all those "degrees."

And maybe you skipped out on a statement of mine: "At low resolution, often times fake things look real and real things may look fake." You want to disagree with this statement? Do it. Be my fucking guest. It'll showcase just how far your "experience" carries you.

Oh you watched a Discovery special and they couldn't conclude that lamp poles were knocked down, that no missles have the wingspan of 100 feet that could have knocked them down, that an NIST and FEMA report that included the who's who of private and public sector structrual and fire engineers concluded that the building collapsed due to fire and that it was a plane that hit the Pentagon, that planes smashing into fortified walls traveling at speeds over 450 mph atomize upon impact? Wow. Sounds like these guys weren't exactly "experts" in the first place. Maybe you should read the NIST reports. Those were actually compiled by the leading experts in the field of structrual and fire engineering. Oh wait, nevermind. You probably won't find them on www.awolbush.com or www.9-11isabiglie.org or http://www.bushisstan.com/dickcheney...everything.htm

What this all comes down to is the fact that you're pissed off because your little 9/11 conspiracy theory ideas have been contradicted by evidence and reports that are the most comprehensive ever conducted on some of these subjects. Because so many private and public sector engineers back this shit up, you have nothing to attack but me. Tell me what you want "back up" on, Sternn. I'll gleefully provide creditable sources from which I get this information. I don't make up information like you do.

[ExistentialDisorder]

I don't have time right now to go into detail, but just for the record, binkie isn't the one that said they were fakes, I did. She said they weren't fake, I say they are. And resolution doesn't have a whole lot to do with it, in this particular instance. there's certain things you look for in an image to tell whether or not it's all the same image or a compilation. The images that were leaked are not authentic. i don't care what self-proclaimed expert claims they are authentic, they're not. i'll point out the details later if i have time or when i get home, if you can't find them yourself.

[Binkie]

Ex,
I'm not saying they're not fake, just that nothing caught my eye in an obvious way to suggest they were doctored (in the stills or the continuity of the series when I layered them). When you've got the time and the patience, I'm all for looking at what you've got on the image(s).

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Binkie

Really? I stated I'm an expert rather than just establishing that I'm familiar with the trade and practices from experience?

Yes, quite often, all the time. But yet, ye never have any backing other than a few links to government sites.

Originally Posted by Binkie

BTW, I don't give a flying fuck about your portfolio or any of your degrees, so spare me of the self-promoting plugs. I'm not impressed and I don't give a shit. I'm mean, Christ, last I heard you don't even have a career in the industry. You were working in a bike shop and playing bodyguard at a bar to bring home your bread and butter. I assume since you don't talk about anything else that you still do the latter for a living. Awesome use of all those "degrees."

Of course you don't. If we play compare portfolio's resume/CV's, and see who actually has experience in these regions, well, you lose. I'll post mine if you post yers. Oh wait, mines already on my website, with a nice link on the bottom of my sig. I'm not afraid to back my creditials.

And for the record, I like working on bikes, and I like working as a bouncer. I own various companies in the states still. Once again, info listed on my site and in my resume. Yeah, I lost my nightclub, but hell, I haven't worked in the bike shop or as a bouncer since last Decemeber. Since then, I've been focusing on my other hobbies. See, I make enough off my experience that I really don't have to work now, or ever. And if you check my other posts, and see that currently I am focusing my attention towards my politicial future, you would know that.

Seaking of, do you currently hold a political office somewhere? If not, why? I mean, you seem to know so much, why are you not a politician? I am. This means my opinions, complaints, and everything else I post here you know, actually makes a difference in the world, not just to the handful of GNet readers. You might give it a try, if you really are all knowing and, if you can. I mean, if you know so much, are old enough, and educated, then whats holding you back?

Originally Posted by Binkie

What this all comes down to is the fact that you're pissed off because your little 9/11 conspiracy theory ideas have been contradicted by evidence and reports that are the most comprehensive ever conducted on some of these subjects. Because so many private and public sector engineers back this shit up, you have nothing to attack but me. Tell me what you want "back up" on, Sternn. I'll gleefully provide creditable sources from which I get this information. I don't make up information like you do.

Once again, if those 'conspiracy theories' are so way out there, then why is it yer the only person here trying to debunk them? Movies are coming out now, a half dozen already, TV shows, speakers, former military personell, all saying the opposite of what you say. Hell, a large chunk of americans think bush had 'something' to do with 911 these days - a huge difference from a few years ago. Once again, we are no longer the minority, so when does a 'conspiracy' become mainstream?

Guess only time will tell, because as yer boy gw's poll numbers go down faster than a presidential aide, you will see more people will view these 'conspiracies' in a much different light, with a much different eye. People on the inside aren't going to stay quite forever - no one ever does. And things will change. Hell, opinions are changing now, especially since the second most used word, when polled, by americans associated with bush is 'liar'.

Another strange factoid here, you don't defend America, you rarely at all say America. You defend BUSH. You do not defend the country, but the man. We have yet to hear to you one bad thing about him. I mean, everyone, including his own people in congress, are now turning on him, and even when questioned on Iraq, you switch the topic to what BUSH has done. Whats this defence of BUSH about? I mean, one might think yer related.

Do you really feel everything he has done is good for America? Thats a simple one word question, like you put it to me, you should answer with a simple one word answer.

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Yes, quite often, all the time. But yet, ye never have any backing other than a few links to government sites.

Heh... everytime I stomp your ass, I make a point to have the majority of my sources be independant. So your little arguement there is easily debunked.

Of course you don't. If we play compare portfolio's resume/CV's, and see who actually has experience in these regions, well, you lose. I'll post mine if you post yers. Oh wait, mines already on my website, with a nice link on the bottom of my sig. I'm not afraid to back my creditials.

I'd lose? What would you be comparing against me, Sternn? What does my portfolio consist of, Sternn? It could be Interior Design for all you know. You don't know what I've got or even what area I work in. You don't know my age, name, or who I am. That's the funny part. Yet you know I'll lose. Oh wait, I forgot, you're an expert on me, you know it all. In actuality, you haven't known anything about me, don't know anything about me, and won't know anything about me ever. People get to know me through a personal relationship, and some here know me, know where I have a degree in, my age, my name, and all that good stuff that you have no clue about. So go ahead and continue to boast. The more you continue to assert shit like, "you never went to a University" the more you look like an idiot to the people who know.

currently I am focusing my attention towards my politicial future

Don't quit your day job just yet, Sternn. That's golden advice.

Now... skipping past the little insignificant, self-promoting plugs which have nothing to do with 9/11 or anything, which I've stated before, that I give even half a shit about (i.e. you), let's move on to something of some substance;

Once again, if those 'conspiracy theories' are so way out there, then why is it yer the only person here trying to debunk them? Movies are coming out now, a half dozen already, TV shows, speakers, former military personell, all saying the opposite of what you say. Hell, a large chunk of americans think bush had 'something' to do with 911 these days - a huge difference from a few years ago. Once again, we are no longer the minority, so when does a 'conspiracy' become mainstream?

Yes, I'm the only one trying to debunk them... in the world. Leading industry engineers never lifted a finger to take part in any comprehensive report, no commentators have said anything to counter the 'theories,' and the media certainly buy this stuff, as obvious by the fact CNN runs articles (this one dated 2005) with lines like, "The father of one of the hijackers who commandeered the first plane that crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11," describing Atta, one of the hijackers that theorists belive is "still alive" (yet lack any photographic evidence of such a claim). I have yet to see any article from the Associated Press deviate from reporting that anyone other than the 19 hijackers carried out the 9/11 attacks, or that anything other than a plane hit the Pentagon. Maybe, since you've stated definitively that you're not a minority, you can also dig me up a scientific poll which suggest theorists are mainstream in America.

Guess only time will tell, because as yer boy gw's poll numbers go down faster than a presidential aide, you will see more people will view these 'conspiracies' in a much different light, with a much different eye. People on the inside aren't going to stay quite forever - no one ever does. And things will change. Hell, opinions are changing now, especially since the second most used word, when polled, by americans associated with bush is 'liar'.

You just keep holding out there, Sternn. Hey! Maybe someone from the CIA will finally come out and oust the JFK conspiracy too!

Another strange factoid here, you don't defend America, you rarely at all say America. You defend BUSH. You do not defend the country, but the man. We have yet to hear to you one bad thing about him. I mean, everyone, including his own people in congress, are now turning on him, and even when questioned on Iraq, you switch the topic to what BUSH has done. Whats this defence of BUSH about? I mean, one might think yer related.

Oh I've stated bad things about Bush before. With Mael, with T, with others I've stated dismay with stuff. However, when you come out and blurb shit, ususally it's errornous information, which I correct you on and you get all huffy about. If you can disprove my arguements on Bush policy, that's one thing when I defend these issues. However, 9 times out of 10 (I'm being extremely generous by even giving you one), when I step in and debate you, you're found to be using made-up or false information in your arguements. And it's generally the government which I defend, not just Bush. You know, the US government, the entity which you think lies about everything.

Do you really feel everything he has done is good for America? Thats a simple one word question, like you put it to me, you should answer with a simple one word answer.

Nope.

[CptSternn]

Actually, I was trying to stay away from posting personal things, as I did not want to start a personal flame war, but if your asking, you DID say a few things, like you live at home with 'rents and that the reason you never entered the military is you DID try, but due to the fact you were getting treatment for psychological disorders you were denied.

Your words, not mine. And I wouldn't bring it up, if you didn't.

-S

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by binkie

Yes, I'm the only one trying to debunk them... in the world. Leading industry engineers never lifted a finger to take part in any comprehensive report, no commentators have said anything to counter the 'theories,' and the media certainly buy this stuff, as obvious by the fact CNN runs articles (this one dated 2005) with lines like, "The father of one of the hijackers who commandeered the first plane that crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11," describing Atta, one of the hijackers that theorists belive is "still alive" (yet lack any photographic evidence of such a claim). I have yet to see any article from the Associated Press deviate from reporting that anyone other than the 19 hijackers carried out the 9/11 attacks, or that anything other than a plane hit the Pentagon.

Well here you go then - links to major news agencies, with photographic evidence and quotes from the FBI.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1559151.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...23/widen23.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...0/wterr120.xml

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/america.attack/

Look at the correction on the cnn article above. It states the FBI questioned at least two of the listed hijackers, who now are known to be alive, well, and living in Florida (well at the time).

CORRECTION
We would like to correct a report that appeared on CNN. Based on information from multiple law enforcement sources, CNN reported that Adnan Bukhari and Ameer Bukhari of Vero Beach Florida, were suspected to be two of the pilots who crashed planes into the World Trade Center. CNN later learned that Adnan Bukhari is still in Florida, where he was questioned by the FBI. We are sorry for the misinformation. A federal law enforcement source now tells CNN that Bukhari passed an FBI polygraph and is not considered a suspect. Through his attorney, Bukhari says that he is helping authorities. Ameer Bukhari died in a small plane crash last year.

So are you arguing with all those news sources AND the FBI now? The FBI admits it had the wrong men, but yet no one is out there clearing their names - other than CNN listing a few small corrections on the last page. A few European news agencies as listed above have MET these men, in person, same as in the pictures.

So you just going to say thats all just some scam as well? How do you explain away those articles?

And, yes, I may be self plugging, but thats because I have nothing to hide and my life is out there with my credentials. You however, make numerous claims, and still never back any up. And please, show us some indpendent sites that back you up? And show us why exact it is you think you know more than various news agencies? Like bush, just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true. I can scan back through this thread alone to see link after link to government sites, numerous un-cited claims, but little actual content from you on any argument.

Realise your never 'debating' me, you are debating the facts as presented by the news. Tis why I think its so funny. I post an article, like the one on the ports, that says, in plain writing one thing, then you always aruge that the article is wrong, or more to the point I'm wrong, and that I am making it up.

I merely quote news articles. You are debating with the AP, Reuters, etc. I find it hard to think you have ever 'beaten' them on any agrument either, even though you profess once again to have on 'many' occassions?

But hey, at least I got my laugh for the day!

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by binkie

Maybe, since you've stated definitively that you're not a minority, you can also dig me up a scientific poll which suggest theorists are mainstream in America.

Ok then, once again, lets find you some mainstream news articles to debate against -

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

Released: August 30, 2004
Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

In fact, CNN polls show 84% of america thinks this now...

http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/911truthCNN.mov

You can google for 911 conspiracy cnn and see the results. CNN did a poll just last month, and now 84% of America now thinks there is a government cover-up and that the bush admin had something to do with it. Watch the clip.

So with 84% of the people polled saying there is a conspiracy, are 84% of americans now just crazy?

-S

[Magpie_Tendencies]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

So with 84% of the people polled saying there is a conspiracy, are 84% of americans now just crazy?

No, not crazy. People just like conspiracy theories. It's why Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" did so well. People loved the idea of there being a conspiracy hidden by the church.

[CptSternn]

But most important, and the questions no one has even tried to answer:

-The FBI claimed all four WTC black boxes were destroyed and missing (but rescue workers claim, in court documents, that three were found and hand delivered to the FBI)

-The symmetrical demolition-like collapse of the 47-story WTC building without any major fires or damage (also pronounced inexplicable by the FEMA investigation team). This building was not hit, nor was it involved in any way with the plane crashes.

-The five surviving "hijackers" now after years of wrangling, acknowledged by the FBI, but yet no major media is asking who the other hijackers were then.

-The magic hijacker passport that floated through the WTC fireball and building collapse to land totally unscathed in the New York street below.

-The WTC first responder testimony that "there were bombs going off all around" - which was echoed on the radios - that bombs were going off from the ground floors and heading up, before the buildnig collapsed. The tapes of these communications are all deemed 'classified'.

These are questions no one has even touched on and answered.

-S

[Binkie]

Oh yeah, you were trying to stay away from posting personal things alright. You plugged your site there a couple of times and shared bullshit which only you are impressed with. Congrats. And though as hard as you try to put your own words in my mouth (i.e. "I live with my parents" - you being the only one on this site who ever said this), I'm not going to discuss my life with you. As I said before, other people on this site know my situation, you don't and won't. The more you try to pretend like you know shit about me, the more you look like an idiot.

Thanks for posting links to the articles I've already debunked too, Sternn (i.e. the BBC article). I asked earlier for someone to provide a link to the "still alive" story published after September of 2001, after the story was found to be not creditable (as BBC didn't even write or investigate the story - it came from a Saudi paper). It's also actually hilarious that you're using the CNN correction. Here's why: Adnan Bukhari and Ameer Bukhari AREN'T amongst the list of the 19 hijackers the FBI released. See if you can find either name on the FBI's list:

* Waleed al-Shehri
* Wail al-Shehri
* Mohammed Atta
* Abdulaziz al-Omari
* Satam al-Suqami
* Marwan al-Shehhi
* Fayez Banihammad
* Mohand al-Shehri
* Hamza al-Ghamdi
* Ahmed al-Ghamdi
* Khalid al-Mihdhar
* Majed Moqed
* Nawaf al-Hazmi
* Salem al-Hazmi
* Hani Hanjour
* Ahmed al-Haznawi
* Ahmed al-Nami
* Ziad Jarrah
* Saeed al-Ghamdi

I don't see those two anywhere, Sternn. Golly gee! Debunked AGAIN! I'm not going to repeat the shit I have stacked up against the "still alive" article (you can scroll up for that), but I will ask you to do this; find that story being published by a major news agency after September 2001. Find it. I mean, if it was creditable and true, surely it would be republished all over the place. I mean, that's a big ass story. So go find it published after September 2001, or at least explain to me why you can't. But skip out on the latter if you're just going to introduce some conspiracy theory about the news media.

Oh you hide shit all the time about your life, Sternn. Don't give me that. You won't tell anyone why you've been to prison on so many different occassions. It's not about that, you just enjoy whoring yourself out there because you think it impresses people to "brag" (about nothing of interest). And if you want me to back up claims, you need to cite them specifically, as we've been over a 100 topics regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories. 5 topic request per post though. I'm not going to list every single source at one request (i.e. ask me to provide sources for five different topics today, then another five tomorrow, another five the next day, etc).

Yet again, you just make bullshit up. I haven't even linked to ONE government website on this entire thread. If you want to disprove me, provide the address to the site that I used in my sources on this website. Do it.

And no, I'm debating YOU most of the time, as you're not even citing the facts of the news articles. EXAMPLE: The deadly force laws, you were proclaiming to everyone that those laws included the right to shoot someone who just steals your cellphone off a bar counter. That was WRONG. Most of your commentary is WRONG. Or you'll pull a Michael Moore and only snip a clip of an article without providing the other half of the informatin. EXAMPLE: a quote from Jill Carol durring a propaganda video which she was forced to make. You used it to try and say that this is what she was really saying and believed. Meanwhile the rest of the article stated that she was at gun point and forced into saying these things. THAT'S what I debate, Sternn. Your propaganda.

Thanks for posting that CNN article as well. Let's take a look at the actual poll and see if it corresponds with what I was looking for:

http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/result...8.exclude.html

"This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate."

Oops... it's not a scientific poll (i.e. what I asked for). Try again, Sternn.

[CptSternn]

Once again, if your so right, then why are there dozens of news articles from dozens of news agencies that say the exact opposite of which you continually say. You continue to say 'I' say things. I merely post the information, quote even, from news articles. Your arguing against the BBC, CNN, Fox, and a dozen other news agencies.

Don't convince me, I mean, I read the news as presented, I don't try to argue that my opinion is better than facts as presented by every news agency on the planet. And, if you look back through the thread, you will see other than yerself, your the only one here convinced, there is no conspiracy and that everything is hunky-dory.

But like most of the other people in this thread, I have questions, and you posting that we are all idiots for believing this doesn't further yer argument, neither does saying all the articles we post here are wrong, because you are some air crash/air physics expert who can discount all the leading news agencies and experts on this.

Truth has a funny way of getting out over time. A few years ago none of this stuff was even mentioned in the news. Now, its becoming mainstream.

Expect more, and as we get more, I'll post more articles you alone can try and 'de-bunk' using yer personal opinions on.

Much like your 'there ARE WMDs' argument you stood by, until it collapsed, your once again fighting against evidence piling up here.

[Binkie]

It's black and white in most cases Sternn. I said, "find me a major news agency that reports on stories that deviate from the story that the 19 hijackers that the FBI indicated flew planes into the WTC and Pentagon buildings on 9/11." You implicated a CNN article that identified two people that weren't even amongst the FBI's list of the 19 9/11 hijackers. Next I said, "Find me a scientific poll with..." and you return with a CNN poll that's anything but scientific (even states it's not).

Meanwhile I ask you to find that BBC article posted after September 2001, after the story was debunked, and you can't find it so suddenly you're done arguing.

You posted your questions, I posted photographic evidence, evaluations done by leading industry experts, videos showing that planes do atomize upon impact at high speeds, listing eye witnesses for you to go out and research/confirm, amongst a wide array of other information. You're saying none of that furthered my arguement? Especially when your retorts to more than half of these were unfounded (i.e. "it's from a government website," "those photographs are fake," or even the ol last resort, "I just don't believe you and that's final") or nonexistant?

As I said before, I'm not trying to convince YOU. You will not be convinced, even if you were in the Pentagon when it was struck. You'd just lie about it, even if you saw a plane. That's just the kind of person you are.

None of this stuff was mentioned in the press? On the contrary, back durring September of 2001 is when the "conspiracy theory" had the most steam. No one knew a whole lot of information about it. No studies were conducted by leading engineers. It was a clusterfuck of reporting and information.

My arguement on the banned chemical weapons in Iraq never collapsed. All you did was link to articles citing the Duelfer Report. I cited information directly out of that report (even linked you to the full transcript) that was contradictory to everything you were trying to say and you failed to formulate a response. I was the last one who made a post in that arguement (in fact, after you failed to formulate a response, Mael and I debated for a while until the thread just died). I called you on your information and you pulled a 'no show' with empty hands because you had no counter-point. It was the same as in this thread where you've failed to formulate creditable counter-arguements, as in, something other than, "you're just linking to government websites." When I called you on THAT, you failed to respond.

[CptSternn]

Seriously, you are now not only going to argue all this evidence and articles are bogus, but now you are going to argue once again Iraq HAD WMD's and the invasion was to find them, and as you argued, they HAD FOUND WMD's?

[Binkie]

There was only - what? One... two articles that were bogus reports that were never seen or heard of again after September 2001? The other articles had no relevance, as I soon pointed out and you didn't seem to understand. All the evidence is stacked on my side. All you have are suspicions and speculation (i.e. the repetition of your "isn't it funny how..." remarks).

And you can go back and look at the thread we argued the Iraq issue in and look at what exactly I was arguing and arguing with.

[CptSternn]

AS from the article above which you claim to be wrong...

CORRECTION
We would like to correct a report that appeared on CNN. Based on information from multiple law enforcement sources, CNN reported that Adnan Bukhari and Ameer Bukhari of Vero Beach Florida, were suspected to be two of the pilots who crashed planes into the World Trade Center. CNN later learned that Adnan Bukhari is still in Florida, where he was questioned by the FBI. We are sorry for the misinformation. A federal law enforcement source now tells CNN that Bukhari passed an FBI polygraph and is not considered a suspect. Through his attorney, Bukhari says that he is helping authorities. Ameer Bukhari died in a small plane crash last year

So if thats wrong, why does CNN have it right there on their site?