- Sep 28, 2010
- Reaction score
Thanks for the information Roy
Unfortunately, I don't really have a strong enough concern that we are all imperiled by a group of unknowns who attempt to control (very poorly I may add) the course of world affairs to reply to all of your arguments. It's a bit like someone else we know who makes their arguments so long that nobody has the time or inclination to point out all the errors, making those arguments in turn appear valid and fully accepted as true.......although I know you better, and I know that, for you, it is a real passion.
Just a couple of things however. In regards to the KAL disaster, the explanation in the wiki article I linked to is perfectly logical, and contradicts most of what you say. If you haven't read it, I would be grateful if you did and share your thoughts on the content.
In reference to the Iranian airline disaster, it was a clear case of the ship's captain being where he should not have been, combined with a design fault in the radar system that identified the airline as an Iranian fighter taking off right behind the airliner and continuing to relay data from the fighter even though the screen cursor was on the airliner, and the fact that the ship was engaged in a surface battle. Another complication was that the ship was using Bahrain time, whilst the flight schedule provided by Iran was in Iranian time (these schedules are provided to warships in the gulf to prevent such accidents), hence the warship was unable to match the airliner with any scheduled flight (plus the flight was late).
Lastly, one of the biggest problems with the CT community is that when a lone scholar comes up with an article/report supporting their theories, or some poster comes up with a new "fact" or "angle", the CTs immediately hold it up as watertight and use it to add credibility to their CT.......however, when a scholar comes forward with a contrary explanation, they are automatically "part of the conspiracy" or "part of an engineered plan of misinformation", and those posters who present alternate theories and solid facts are labelled "misinformationalists", "shills", and "character assassins"......in fact you do it too Roy, although perhaps not as badly as many I've read. Here is where the CT community is making a grave error in communication.......once you make it about people and not facts, you lose most logical open-minded readers, as they are interested in facts and not whether someone might be one thing or another.
A fact is a fact, regardless of who presents it, and in the 9/11 CT I see a LOT of conjecture, supposition, and "what if/why didn't". These are not facts.
It's also important to note that the fact that so many explanations and theories exist about the WTC collapses shows that NOBODY REALLY KNOWS what ACTUALLY happened inside the buildings structure.....otherwise everyone would agree, as it would be a FACT. The scientific community has no prior event of this magnitude to compare with, and until the same tower construction collapses under the same conditions then we won't know for sure.
I know you kinda answered my question about how many people would need to be involved in such a HUGE conspiracy......but you kinda didn't. Let's assume there were "only a few" who were involved in the placing of charges......how about the rest of the conspiracy? You're asking me to believe that NOBODY among the hundreds if not thousands of people who would have to be involved in such a conspiracy (in my estimate) had ANY scruples about killing thousands of their countrymen? I would love to see the results of a secret ballot among the military about whether they would participate in such a plan....and the military would have to have been involved at some point. It would only take ONE person to go public about it and the whole event could NEVER take place EVER.....as it would be immediately obvious the person was right and it would bring down a government, if not the country.
As for the BBC 26 mins thing.....there are so many logical explanations for this it isn't funny. The madness and fluidity of that day caused MANY misreports and incorrect information to be broadcast as fact. The idea that "someone wasn't listening at the briefing" is just ridiculous, as it implies that OTHER countries were involved in the conspiracies, and even MORE ridiculous, foreign MEDIA. Anyone who knows a media person/journalist personally would know that something like this would never fly for a second. It has been proven time and time again that a message relayed from one person to another will transform along the journey.....it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that "WTC07 is about to collapse" could very easily become "WTC07 has collapsed" after being relayed through a few people on the ground during intense confusion. The argument that "the anchor was reporting the collapse with the building clearly visible in the background" is a real straw-clutcher. Firstly, the anchor wasn't looking backwards, and even if they HAD done so seconds before the report, how would they know which building was WTC07? I reckon most people would have struggled to tell you which building was WTC07 before 9/11, and probably even more so on the day.
Very lastly.....the "steel shouldn't have melted" argument. Who took the actual temperature of the steel and the surroundings at the time of collapse?
Bottom line. The CT community relies almost exclusively on process of elimination. I haven't seen any 9/11 events that don't have a logical, scientific explanation. Just because the CT don't like or agree with those explanations, doesn't make them less plausible I.e. for process of elimination to work, you must show ALL other explanations to be completely false.....and AFAIK, such elimination is not possible in regards to the events surrounding 9/11.
It's nothing personal Roy.....I hope you know that
Hey, I know it`s nothing personal, as far as the towers collapsing there is to this day no theory that holds up to the laws of physics as to how they collapsed bar a controlled demolition, the first responders 12,000 pages of testimonies of which a high percent mention explosions through the day upto and including the collapses....
Of the various truth groups covering every aspect of 9/11 each and every one of them explain in great detail with relevant data to match, of why it was impossible to happen that way, firstly, airline pilots with 1000`s of hours flying experience between them, here you will find out amongst other things and using respective flight data`s as recorded by air traffic control, huge discrepancies and basically impossible manoeuvres to make..........
Second on the list, architects and structural engineers, experts in the field of building design and the importance of load bearing and the ability to share it if/when needed......
Third, no better people to explain the world of espionage and counter terrorist agencies than those whom have vast 1st hand experience in these fields, this list is very impressive, read what they have to say........
Fourth - Who knows better about the judicial systems and crimes committed than lawyers and judges?, once again a highly impressive list............
5th - To tackle scientific and other related anomalies of 9/11......
Sixth - It`s getting to something when even the medical professions smell a rat......
Seventh - Who better to voice their concerns than the people whom lost family members and survivors........
Eight - Not all Journalists are bad........
There are several more active truth groups out there i`ve just named what I believe are the main ones, okay, going back to scientific analysis's etcetera, there is upto now no relating hypothesis/theory as to how the towers collapsed that day, NISTS`s explanation is put down to a model of the towers they recreated but will never disclose it as, and I quote "It would jeopardise public safety", however, you will find in the links I provided from every single field covering 9/11 irrefutable proof as to why it was impossible to have happened the way it was depicted by the official story, pilots for 9/11 truth and AE for 9/11 truth are the main providers for this.
Talking of how many had to be involved is a straw man argument, let`s look at Operation Northwoods to which there was compartmentalisation, a high percent of people involved did not know what their counterparts were upto in other areas......
There have been a few whistle blowers regarding 9/11 Sybil Edmonds an F.B.I. asset being the best known.......
Summary, I completely respect your views and opinions on this matter , but for me, when you have the likes of pilots, constructional experts, military personnel, and so much more stating comprehensively it was an inside job, then I believe them, they are putting their reputations, jobs, safety, on the line in expressing their concerns, versus an official story that yields no supporting evidence that would stand up in court whatsoever to strengthen their account, it`s an easy decision to make .
Footnote:- Bin Laden wasn`t even indicted for 9/11, on the F.B.I.`s most wanted website he isn`t named for 9/11 as there was no direct evidence whatsoever linking him to it........
Outdated URL (Invalid)
No mention of 9/11.
Ooops nearly forgot, in relation to KAL-007, did you pick up on the part where they stated the flight become seriously off course around 10 minutes after take off?, and this aspect was not relayed to the pilots even though it was picked up via the central Radar control unit.
Also, regarding the B.B.C`s reporting of WTC7 collapsing 26 minutes prematurely, how a bulletin is processed, firstly - The source has to be verified and authenticated by the news editor, this aspect is mainly due to broadcasting falsities that can/will bring about lawsuits involving slander/libel, secondly - The bulletin is then fed into the autocue for the news anchor to read, this broadcast was not aired due to the news anchor being under the hypnosis of the hectic events happening that day, it was down to her reading from the autocue word for word what her news editor had fed into it, so, where did this information come from and why was the source marked as reliable and more importantly why was it authenticated.
The B.B.C. is the largest gatherer of world news in the world with archives dating back to the 50`s, all that is needed is the original video which will contain the relative data regarding whom authenticated it, problem here is - In all the time the archive has been in operation only one news footage reel, video, DVD has been lost, guess which one?......
4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.
Process of elimination regarding ways a building can collapse at nigh on free-fall speeds.......
1). Subsidence due to being built on none load bearing strata - A slow drawn out process as to which the actual collapse would not be symmetrical.
2). Collapse due to shoddy workmanship - Parts of the building would start to show cracks and the weakest parts would fall off until they reached the stronger parts and become stabilised.
3). Fire - As of yet no tower blocks in history have collapsed due to fire except the 3 that day on 9/11, once again building collapses due to fire do not collapse in on themselves, parts of the building crumble and fall off, for a whole building to collapse it would take far longer than free fall speed and remembering that fire spreads upwards, so the bottom sections of the building would remain upright (unless fire was started at ground level).
4). Acts of nature - Earthquakes, a high chance of the building falling at free fall speed but in large sections and not reduced to dust as it implodes.
5). Acts of nature - Hurricane, Once again if a hurricane was strong enough to initiate a building collapse the building would either topple over in one section or snap and leave some of the tower still standing.
6). Acts of nature - Tornado, If a tornado was strong enough to rip apart a tower block it would do just that, scattering the debris a fair distance from the tower`s foundation.
7). Controlled demolition - The only way a building can be brought down symmetrically, and in it`s own footprint whilst being reduced to dust as it collapses at free-fall speeds with no resistance whatsoever from the lower storeys, and ejecting sections of the building weighing over 40,000 lbs over a hundred metres and embedding them in neighbouring buildings, is a top down demolition (WTC1 WTC2), and a conventional controlled demolition (WTC7).
Regarding how hot it was inside - Amongst other aspects here you will find a message via a radio from firemen telling of small isolated pockets of fire around the 79th floor, just prior to collapse, no signs of a raging inferno nor the building initiating a collapse........
You mentioned scientific answers etc, could you give me links to the source of these please?.