"Flight 93 was deliberately shot down in a no win situation..."
-
"Flight 93 was deliberately shot down in a no win situation..."
- Brigadier General Ben Partin, U.S.A.F. (Ret)
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rense.com/general81/rebut.htm
Rebuttal: Flight 93 Video
Devy Kidd
4-29-8
Jeff:
I feel it important to rebut a video you've posted titled, 'No Plane' Says
Shanksville Mayor' as I feel it's very misleading:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s
I believe our goal regarding 911 is to seek the truth, not sensationalism. I
feel it hurts our cause when web sites make claims they state as fact, when
the conclusions presented are little more than speculation. One should always
make the distinction or your credibility will sour with readers. Additionally,
I find it republsive to see web sites with this type of hype: 'Da plane! Da
plane! Find da plane! Americans died a horrible death that day and this kind
of trash is offensive.
There were many aspects of Flight 93 that bothered me, so I went to
Shanksville, Pennsylvania, in August 2005, and did my own on-site
investigation. It was a long haul from Sacramento, California. I also asked a
friend of mine who is an appellate attorney out of Washington, D.C., to meet
me there as a witness to my interviews. Dane and I taped all of the interviews
so there would be no doubt as to what was said.
I've done on-sites with OKC, Alaska Airlines Flight 261 and others. Going to
these sites personally gives you the opportunity to not only interview people
who were involved, but gives you a better visual experience of the events of
that day. I stood in front of the Pentagon on November 11, 2001, exactly two
months after it was hit and I can tell you - what you saw on TV was nothing
compared to what the structure looked like up close.
The problem I have with this video is that it proves nothing. It is
speculation using the cockpit tapes. Let me explain my position.
After interviewing eye witnesses, there is no doubt in my mind that Flight 93
crashed in that field. I can also tell you that the good folks who live in
that area highly resent a lot of what has been written about that day -
especially claims that no plane crashed. There are too many people with
nothing to gain by lying about what they saw. The residents in Somerset,
Shanksville and the surrounding burgs were angry because they feel certain
individuals came into their towns and took advantage of them and tried to make
them into liars. These God-fearing folks out there were very emotionally
affected by what happened and I'm talking about EMTs as well as witnesses.
In reading those interviews, you will see that Mayor Stull in his own words
has been exploited and was ready to sue one German film company until they
removed the material on their site about him.
In my investigative report you will see that I debunk some of the claims out
there taken as truth on the Internet because there are simply no FACTS to
support them. One thing that might surprise people is that pieces of the plane
were still being coughed up out of this strip-mined soil even while I was
there. Another fact that raises huge red flags: there are several boxes of
remains squirreled away in a mausoleum (the location is "secret"). As I said
in my report, I believe testing could show missile residue, but there's no way
of knowing what any testing found without a real investigation and a grand
jury.
My on site investigation can be read here along with the transcriptions of
those interviews:
http://www.devvy.com/flight_93_part_1.html
My lingering question was: Did the passengers bring down the plane or was it
shot down by our military. A few months after I returned from this on site
investigation, I had a lengthy phone conversation with one of my dearest
friends, Brigadier General Ben Partin, U.S.A.F. (Ret). Ben is no conspiracy
wacko; he is one of the most decent, honorable people I've ever had the honor
of knowing. When I brought up this issue, Ben said he was at a luncheon for
retired military officers and Col. Donn de Grand-Pre was there. He also said
that he had known Col. de Grand-Pre for twenty years and never knew him to lie
about anything. Ben asked Col. de Grand-Pre face to face about the shoot down
of Flight 93 and the response was: Yes, he interviewed the pilot who shot down
Flight 93 and there's no question whatsoever that Flight 93 was deliberately
shot down in a no win situation. Once again, the only way to absolutely
confirm this to the satisfaction of the American people and the families who
lost loved ones on Flight 93 is by a grand jury with subpoena power.
Another major claim now taken as truth: Flight 93 landed at the
Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport, the passengers deplaned, kidnapped,
but no one knows where they went. I filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act)
request with the FAA to obtain the take off and landing records for September
11, 2001. As expected, I got the shuffle and filed a lawsuit:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd215.htm
I was successful in prevailing and all of the documents I requested were
coughed up. They are scanned in this column:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd232.htm
There is no question in my mind that Flight 93 never landed at
Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport. The one press released issued by
Mayor White was done in mass confusion and the records do not support this
theory.
There is so much excellent investigative material on credible web sites about
September 11, 2001, but there is also a plethora of junk. I'm convinced some
of it is agent provocateurs who are deliberately throwing out red herrings to
mislead people and damage the credibility of those who have done really fine
work on 911. In all my 911 columns, I have linked to what I consider the best
investigative work and videos.
I do not claim to be the last word on 911 by any means, but if your readers
are interested, they can read my many columns on 911, including the ones about
Enron and 911 on my web site here:
http://www.devvy.com/
Cordially,
Devvy Kidd
April 28, 2008
Disclaimer
MainPage
http://www.rense.com
This Site Served by TheHostPros
Vandar
There goes any credibility this piece might have had.
-
>> "Flight 93 was deliberately shot down in a no win situation..."
>> - Brigadier General Ben Partin, U.S.A.F. (Ret)
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> http://www.rense.com/general81/rebut.htm
>> Rebuttal: Flight 93 Video
>> Devy Kidd
>> 4-29-8
>>
>>
>> My lingering question was: Did the passengers bring down
>> the plane or was it shot down by our military. A few months
>> after I returned from this on site investigation, I had a lengthy
>> phone conversation with one of my dearest friends, Brigadier
>> General Ben Partin, U.S.A.F. (Ret). Ben is no conspiracy wacko;
>> he is one of the most decent, honorable people I've ever had
>> the honor of knowing. When I brought up this issue, Ben said
>> he was at a luncheon for retired military officers and Col. Donn
>> de Grand-Pre was there. He also said that he had known
>> Col. de Grand-Pre for twenty years and never knew him to lie
>> about anything.
Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There goes any credibility this piece might have had.
Who the fuck is "Vandar" ?
- regards
- jb
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Moyers Journal
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/profile.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Iarnrod
> >> "Flight 93 was deliberately shot down in a no win situation..."
> >> - Brigadier General Ben Partin, U.S.A.F. (Ret)
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------
> >>http://www.rense.com/general81/rebut.htm
> >> Rebuttal: Flight 93 Video
> >> Devy Kidd
> >> 4-29-8
>
> >> [ ... ]
>
> >> My lingering question was: Did the passengers bring down
> >> the plane or was it shot down by our military. A few months
> >> after I returned from this on site investigation, I had a lengthy
> >> phone conversation with one of my dearest friends, Brigadier
> >> General Ben Partin, U.S.A.F. (Ret). Ben is no conspiracy wacko;
> >> he is one of the most decent, honorable people I've ever had
> >> the honor of knowing. When I brought up this issue, Ben said
> >> he was at a luncheon for retired military officers and Col. Donn
> >> de Grand-Pre was there. He also said that he had known
> >> Col. de Grand-Pre for twenty years and never knew him to lie
> >> about anything.
> > There goes any credibility this piece might have had.
>
> Who the fuck is "Vandar" ?
Someone who knows more than Ben "OKC was an inside job" Partin.
-
>>>> "Flight 93 was deliberately shot down in a no win situation..."
>>>> - Brigadier General Ben Partin, U.S.A.F. (Ret)
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>> http://www.rense.com/general81/rebut.htm
>>>> Rebuttal: Flight 93 Video
>>>> Devy Kidd
>>>> 4-29-8
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My lingering question was: Did the passengers bring down
>>>> the plane or was it shot down by our military. A few months
>>>> after I returned from this on site investigation, I had a lengthy
>>>> phone conversation with one of my dearest friends, Brigadier
>>>> General Ben Partin, U.S.A.F. (Ret). Ben is no conspiracy wacko;
>>>> he is one of the most decent, honorable people I've ever had
>>>> the honor of knowing. When I brought up this issue, Ben said
>>>> he was at a luncheon for retired military officers and Col. Donn
>>>> de Grand-Pre was there. He also said that he had known
>>>> Col. de Grand-Pre for twenty years and never knew him to lie
>>>> about anything.
>> Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> There goes any credibility this piece might have had.
> "-" wrote:
>> Who the fuck is "Vandar" ?
"Iarnrod" <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Someone who knows more than Ben "OKC was an inside job" Partin.
And why does "Vandar" know more than General Ben Partin ?
- regards
- jb
----------------------------------------------------------------
UK: Getting Tough with 'Health Tourists'
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=4403
----------------------------------------------------------------
Al Dykes
The relevant question is, has the General actually looked at the
evidence for Flight 93?
[1] DNA for all passangers crew found and identified
[2] The hole
[3] 95% of the airplane recovered in the hole
[4] Black boxes recovered and analyzed
[5] Video of Phanton hitting wall
[6] Lots of Flight 93 links
[7] 1960 Air-to-air collision NYC
[8] Analysis of Flt 93 Balck Boxes
[9] 1,200 investigators and first responders,.
[10] Remains of aircraft in storage.
[11] Papers & light objects found up to 8 miles from the crash
[12] Pictures
[13] Largest peice of Flt 93 was half a ton
[14] Coroner Statement
[15] Flight Data Recorder data and WTC data for Flt 93
[16] THE NORAD RESPONSE TO 9/11 COmplete timing and FAA info
[1] --------------------------------------------------------------------------
DNA
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011220shanksville1220p2.asp
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2fhpe8
Links to forensics and hijacker identification
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/linksto911forensicsaqndvictimidentificat
The hijacker's license
http://bp0.blogger.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/RzjIqhqANiI/AAAAAAAAAuw/8Ve-LbpabIs/s1600-h/PA00101A.jpg
[2] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hole:
The aircraft impacted at approximately 563 mph (906 km/h), at a
40 degree angle.[26] The impact left a crater about 115 feet (35
m) wide and 10 to 12 feet (about 3.5 m) deep. There were no
survivors among the 44 passengers, crew and terrorists (all were
killed by the impact or had been previously killed during
flight).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5tvkk
[3] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the in the news on 9/24/2001, CNN reports 95% or the aircraft
was recovered form that hole including both black boxes.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/24/inv.pennsylvania.site/index.html
CNN.com
FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe
SHANKSVILLE, Pennsylvania (CNN) --The FBI announced Monday that its
investigation of the site where a hijacked jet slammed into a field
here is complete and that 95 percent of the plane was recovered.
The federal investigation into the September 11 terrorist attacks
continues.
Evidence-gathering was halted Saturday afternoon and the pieces of
United Airlines Flight 93 that had been recovered were turned over
Sunday to the airline, with the exception of the flight data recorder
and the voice recorder, which are being held and analyzed by the FBI,
according to FBI agent Bill Crowley.
Crowley said the biggest piece of the plane that was recovered was a
6-by-7-foot piece of the fuselage skin, including about four
windows. The heaviest piece, Crowley said, was part of an engine fan,
weighing about 1,000 pounds.
Flight 93 was one of four jets hijacked Sept. 11. Authorities believe
the flight, which originated in Newark, New Jersey, and had been
destined for San Francisco, was headed for the nation's capital, where
the hijackers may have intended to slam it into the White House or the
Capitol.
Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller have
praised the passengers of that flight, saying it appears their actions
in trying to regain control of the aircraft averted a greater tragedy.
People who spoke by phone with passengers after the plane was hijacked
say that after the passengers found out about the earlier World Trade
Center attack, they decided to try to overpower the hijackers.
And officials familiar with the flight's cockpit voice recorder say it
shows there was a "definite struggle," which they described as
desperate and wild, between hijackers and some of the passengers.
All 44 people on board the flight were killed when it slammed into the
ground.
[4] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black boxes recovered and analyzed
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf
] Black boxes recovered and analyzed
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf
Of the airliner parts, the pieces that investigators judged
most significant were the plane's cockpit voice recorder and
flight data recorder, both unearthed within 3 1/2 days of the
crash. The voice recording that remained is being analyzed for
clues to confirm the identities of the four hijackers who
seized the Newark-to-San Francisco flight before it crashed.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010925scene0925p2.asp
[5] ------------
Video of Phanton hitting wall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8
[6] Lots of Flight 93 links
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93shanksvillesummaryofevidence%2Cman
[7] Air-to-air collision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_New_York_air_disaster
[8] ----------------
Black boxes recovered and analyzed
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf
Discussed : http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102924
[9] 1,200 investigators and first responders,.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93shanksvillesummaryofevidence%2Cman
[10] --------------------
Remains of aircraft in storage.
Since it had no more use for it, the FBI turned the airliner debris
-- but not the data and voice recorders -- over to United Airlines
yesterday. Asked what United will do with the debris, airline
spokeswoman Whitney Staley said, "I don't think a decision has been
made ... but we're not commenting."
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010925scene0925p2.asp
"With the recovery Friday night of the cockpit voice
recorder from United Flight 93, workers at the crash site
have shifted their focus to a long, arduous search for what remains of
the jet and its victims.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010916otherjetnat5p5.asp
[11] -----------------------------
Debris from the crash has been found up to 8 miles from the crash
site, but searchers are concentrating on the crater where most of
the remains are located. Papers and other light objects were
carried aloft by the explosion after impact of the plane and they
were transported by a nine-knot wind.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010916otherjetnat5p5.asp
[12] -----------------------------
Pictures
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200061.html
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200062.html
Live news coverage showing debris http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeWi0JpI__M
The hijacker's license
http://bp0.blogger.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/RzjIqhqANiI/AAAAAAAAAuw/8Ve-LbpabIs/s1600-h/PA00101A.jpg
[13] -----------------------
FBI spokesman Bill Crowley said that the largest piece of plane
recovered was a shred of fuselage skin that covered four windows --
a
piece seven feet long from a jetliner that was 155 feet long.
The heaviest piece, he said, was a half-ton section of engine fan.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010925scene0925p2.asp
[14] --------------------
Once he was able to absorb the scene, Miller says, "I stopped
being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no
bodies there. It became like a giant funeral service." As a
funeral director, Miller says, he is honored and humbled to
preside over what has become essentially an immense cemetery
stretching far into the scenic wooded mountain ridge. He
considers it the final resting place of 40 national heroes.
He saw dust, not bodies.
[15] -----------------------------------
Flight Data Recorder data and WTC data for Flt 93
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm
[16] ----------------------------
THE NORAD RESPONSE TO 9/11 Compiled by Andrew Burfield
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2164577#post2164577
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
Iarnrod
> >>>> "Flight 93 was deliberately shot down in a no win situation..."
> >>>> - Brigadier General Ben Partin, U.S.A.F. (Ret)
> >>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>http://www.rense.com/general81/rebut.htm
> >>>> Rebuttal: Flight 93 Video
> >>>> Devy Kidd
> >>>> 4-29-8
>
> >>>> [ ... ]
>
> >>>> My lingering question was: Did the passengers bring down
> >>>> the plane or was it shot down by our military. A few months
> >>>> after I returned from this on site investigation, I had a lengthy
> >>>> phone conversation with one of my dearest friends, Brigadier
> >>>> General Ben Partin, U.S.A.F. (Ret). Ben is no conspiracy wacko;
> >>>> he is one of the most decent, honorable people I've ever had
> >>>> the honor of knowing. When I brought up this issue, Ben said
> >>>> he was at a luncheon for retired military officers and Col. Donn
> >>>> de Grand-Pre was there. He also said that he had known
> >>>> Col. de Grand-Pre for twenty years and never knew him to lie
> >>>> about anything.
> >> Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> There goes any credibility this piece might have had.
> > "-" wrote:
> >> Who the fuck is "Vandar" ?
> > Someone who knows more than Ben "OKC was an inside job" Partin.
>
> And why does "Vandar" know more than General Ben Partin ?
Because Vandar is saying true things and Partin is lying.
Vandar
>>> "Flight 93 was deliberately shot down in a no win situation..."
>>> - Brigadier General Ben Partin, U.S.A.F. (Ret)
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------
>>>http://www.rense.com/general81/rebut.htm
>>>Rebuttal: Flight 93 Video
>>>Devy Kidd
>>>4-29-8
>>>
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>>My lingering question was: Did the passengers bring down
>>>the plane or was it shot down by our military. A few months
>>>after I returned from this on site investigation, I had a lengthy
>>>phone conversation with one of my dearest friends, Brigadier
>>>General Ben Partin, U.S.A.F. (Ret). Ben is no conspiracy wacko;
>>>he is one of the most decent, honorable people I've ever had
>>>the honor of knowing. When I brought up this issue, Ben said
>>>he was at a luncheon for retired military officers and Col. Donn
>>>de Grand-Pre was there. He also said that he had known
>>>Col. de Grand-Pre for twenty years and never knew him to lie
>>>about anything.
>
>
> Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>There goes any credibility this piece might have had.
>
>
>
> Who the fuck is "Vandar" ?
A poster much more informed than a "hyphen". It's also a character in a
book - which is a bunch of pieces of paper with words on them.
Vandar
I didn't say I did. I said the credibility of that Rense piece is shot
by the guy saying he never knew "Col. Donn de Grand-Pre" to lie.
Do a little research on "Col. Donn de Grand-Pre" and you'll know why.
Hell, do a little research on Gen. Ben Partin while you're at it. You
might be surprised.
"Ben is no conspiracy wacko"
johnoneill
"Vandar" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:qNGSj.2384$NU2...@news01.roc.ny...
Just watch Vandar playing all high and mighty about "credibility".
Too bad he's a chickenshit, so he won't do the same on Kissinger,
Silverstein etc etc.
-
>>> "-" wrote:
>>>> Who the fuck is "Vandar" ?
>> "Iarnrod" <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> Someone who knows more than Ben "OKC was an inside job" Partin.
> "-" wrote:
>> And why does "Vandar" know more than General Ben Partin ?
Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I didn't say I did. I said the credibility of that Rense piece is shot
> by the guy saying he never knew "Col. Donn de Grand-Pre" to lie.
> Do a little research on "Col. Donn de Grand-Pre" and you'll know why.
I'm doing a little research but I still don't know why.
Care to elaborate, using the URLs and citations aplenty?
> Hell, do a little research on Gen. Ben Partin while you're at it.
> You might be surprised. "Ben is no conspiracy wacko"
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4224779103128976372
You're judging him by what you find to be his "unacceptable"
conclusions, mostly those which force you to think and rethink,
rather than by any critique of methodological fallacies. Do you
disagree with Gen. Ben Partin that OKC Murrah Building needed
to remain for a bit longer pending the -thorough- investation?
Or are you -opposed- to thorough investigations?
I will also kindly request of you to preserve my neatness in the
"quote and reply" format so that we do not introduce your confusion.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Al Dykes" <ady...@panix.com> wrote:
> The relevant question is, has the General actually looked at the
> evidence for Flight 93?
Nobody doubts the "evidence for Flight 93." The Subject: line
here concerns whether "Flight 93" was a shoot-down situation.
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------------------
WILL THE MILITARY ARREST BUSH & CHENEY??
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=45160
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Interview of Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, U.S. Army (ret.)
http://www.freedomunderground.org/view.php?v=3&t=3&aid=5555
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Dykes
- <jazze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> "-" wrote:
>>>>> Who the fuck is "Vandar" ?
>
>>> "Iarnrod" <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> Someone who knows more than Ben "OKC was an inside job" Partin.
>
>> "-" wrote:
>>> And why does "Vandar" know more than General Ben Partin ?
>
>Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I didn't say I did. I said the credibility of that Rense piece is shot
>> by the guy saying he never knew "Col. Donn de Grand-Pre" to lie.
>> Do a little research on "Col. Donn de Grand-Pre" and you'll know why.
>
>
> I'm doing a little research but I still don't know why.
> Care to elaborate, using the URLs and citations aplenty?
>
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/who-is-colonel-donn-de-grand-pre.html
george
> Just watch Vandar playing all high and mighty about "credibility".
>
> Too bad he's a chickenshit, so he won't do the same on Kissinger,
> Silverstein etc etc.
So you looked up the links and saw that the latest kook claim comes
from a real kook with a history.
And rather than work with that you are once more reduced to childish
attacks upon the presenters of evidence...
-
>>> "-" wrote:
>>>> And why does "Vandar" know more than General Ben Partin ?
>> Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I didn't say I did. I said the credibility of that Rense piece is shot
>>> by the guy saying he never knew "Col. Donn de Grand-Pre" to lie.
>>> Do a little research on "Col. Donn de Grand-Pre" and you'll know why.
> "-" <jazze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm doing a little research but I still don't know why.
>> Care to elaborate, using the URLs and citations aplenty?
ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
> http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/who-is-colonel-donn-de-grand-pre.html
Yes, I had found this one already, though like classic ethnic
humour perhaps I need to have the punch-line explained to me.
In the first remark poster "James B." seems confused about what
are "the first three grades of enlisted." Col. Don de Grand-Pre was
referencing E9, E8, E7 ... not E1, E2, E3 as "James B" presumed.
Then, "James B" doesn't appear to understand how interservice
operations may work: an O6 might serve as an Army Colonel while
attached with an Army Unit, an Air Force Colonel while attached
with the Air Force and a Marine Colonel while with the Marines.
Moreover, others might mistakenly assign Don de Grand-Pre so
let's reference only what Don de Grand-Pre says about himself, ok?
"James B" imagines that exposure of the holohoax in some way
compromises truth-seeking. From whence did reviewers obtain all
of those assumptions? What is the significance of what "James B"
can or cannot find, when conducting _his_own_ research?
The "comments" section cannot stay on topic, apparently.
Wandering off-topic is typical of what characterizes cultic fallacy.
Seems to be opinion of commentator "piratenewstv" that Flight 93
made an emergency landing in Cleveland. I suppose one ought
to start with deciding whether Flight 93 crashed or not. Surely it is
possible to determine whether there is any airplane corresponding
to Flight 93 today, and what happened to the passengers on board.
Where is the follow-up explanation from WCPO TV or Akron Beacon
Journal, concerning this vexing discrepancy?
It's much more preferable to suppose that planes did not crash
or were not shot down prior to crash. Surely something I myself
would prefer to believe. Though that's taking the "easy way out"
rather than conducting a thoroughly investigation, don't you think?
If all parties were simply conferenced into a common inquiry then
we might get to the bottom of this. Why the reluctance not to obtain
all of the facts? On both sides it seems there are conspirators vs.
conspirators who are stumbling over each other's shoelaces and
breathing each other's exhaust. Let's consolidate to a courtroom !
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2008
--------------------------------------------------------------
Iarnrod
> >>> "-" wrote:
> > Hell, do a little research on Gen. Ben Partin while you're at it.
> > You might be surprised. "Ben is no conspiracy wacko"
> >http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4224779103128976372
>
> You're judging him by what you find to be his "unacceptable"
> conclusions, mostly those which force you to think and rethink,
> rather than by any critique of methodological fallacies.
No, we're judghing him by his logical fallacies. He says he knew
within "hours" that McVeigh's truck bomb could not have done the
damage that it did. But he couldn't have know "within hours" what the
bomb was, and he proves his stupidity by still repeating even today
his incorrect description of the bomb. It was not a 4,000 pound
ammonium nitrate and fuel oil bomb,
It was on the order of 6,800 pounds of AN plus Tovex plus
nitromethane, a chemical fuel used in drag racing. It was not diesel
fuel.
The power of the bomb was much greater than idiot Partin keep going
around the country lying about.
> Do you
> disagree with Gen. Ben Partin that OKC Murrah Building needed
> to remain for a bit longer pending the -thorough- investation?
> Or are you -opposed- to thorough investigations?
A thorough investigation was done. But the building remnant was
unstable and in danger of sudden collapse and had to come down.
> I will also kindly request of you to preserve my neatness in the
> "quote and reply" format so that we do not introduce your confusion.
It's hardly neat. It's confusing.
> Nobody doubts the "evidence for Flight 93." The Subject: line
> here concerns whether "Flight 93" was a shoot-down situation.
It was not. If you'd been following you would know that the plane hit
the ground intact. It was not shot down. The nearby corporate jet was
not a military fighter.
John P.
> Then, "James B" doesn't appear to understand how interservice
> operations may work: an O6 might serve as an Army Colonel while
> attached with an Army Unit, an Air Force Colonel while attached
> with the Air Force and a Marine Colonel while with the Marines.
Nope. If you're in the Army and go do some work with the Marines, you're
still an Army Colonel.
Seon Ferguson
the questions I had about flight 93.
johnoneill
"george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message news:3cb8e742-3849-4d89...@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 3, 5:00 am, "johnoneill" <johnone...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just watch Vandar playing all high and mighty about "credibility".
>>
>> Too bad he's a chickenshit, so he won't do the same on Kissinger,
>> Silverstein etc etc.
>
> So you looked up the links and saw that the latest kook claim comes
> from a real kook with a history.
So, you have (as always) ignored "kook's" demands to be as critical about Silverstein
as you are about "kooks"?
Pffff, george.
> And rather than work with that you are once more reduced to childish
> attacks upon the presenters of evidence...
Vandar is a liar, just like you, georgieboy. I can't insult you guys. You've
insulted yourself and everyone else the day you were spewed out of your
mommas' wombs.
george
> "george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in messagenews:3cb8e742-3849-4d89...@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > So you looked up the links and saw that the latest kook claim comes
> > from a real kook with a history.
>
> So, you have (as always) ignored "kook's" demands to be as critical about Silverstein
> as you are about "kooks"?
>
> Pffff, george.
>
> > And rather than work with that you are once more reduced to childish
> > attacks upon the presenters of evidence...
>
> Vandar is a liar, just like you, georgieboy. I can't insult you guys. You've
> insulted yourself and everyone else the day you were spewed out of your
> mommas' wombs.
So you're losing not only the plot but also any semblance of sanity
you might have claimed..
I want my 'kook brain explosion' points donated to any charity that
will take these poor deluded things out of their cardboard boxes and
put them into warm rubber walled rooms
johnoneill
"george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message news:ab0e03ae-044a-49f4...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Run, george, run.
John P.
> Run, george, run.
George is right here, Dumbass, dealing with the facts.
You're here too. Perhaps one day, you will also make some attempt to deal
with the facts.
BDK
@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, gbl...@hnpl.net says...
Isn't that nice? Such concern for those poor kooks.
I'll donate a quarter. Will that feed a poor, cardboard box dwelling,
Croatian kook for a week?
Golly, I hope so..
BDK
BDK
george
> In article <fvl9o3$63...@aioe.org>, johnone...@gmail.com says...
> > Run, george, run.
>
> He's too busy laughing.
At the thought that I'd run from the evidence of 911..
Of course demental is worth a chuckle or three...
What will his next comedic claim be I wonder ?
-
>>> Hell, do a little research on Gen. Ben Partin while you're at it.
>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3D4224779103128976372
> "-" wrote:
>> You're judging him by what you find to be his "unacceptable"
>> conclusions, mostly those which force you to think and rethink,
>> rather than by any critique of methodological fallacies.
Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No, we're judghing him by his logical fallacies. He says he knew
> within "hours" that McVeigh's truck bomb could not have done the
> damage that it did. But he couldn't have know "within hours" what the
> bomb was, and he proves his stupidity by still repeating even today
> his incorrect description of the bomb. It was not a 4,000 pound
> ammonium nitrate and fuel oil bomb,
>
> It was on the order of 6,800 pounds of AN plus Tovex plus
> nitromethane, a chemical fuel used in drag racing. It was not diesel
> fuel.
>
> The power of the bomb was much greater than idiot Partin keep going
> around the country lying about.
Clearly there is room for much lattitude and discrepancy of
opinion concerning the actual size of the truck bomb explosion,
compared with the size necessary to accomplish the demonstrated
effect. Characterizing oneself as an expert merely on account of
labelling one's opposition as "idiot" is surely cultic and crackpot.
Where is your own YouTube video supplying contrast argument?
>> Do you disagree with Gen. Ben Partin that OKC Murrah Building
>> needed to remain for a bit longer pending the -thorough-
>> investigation? Or are you -opposed- to thorough investigations?
> A thorough investigation was done. But the building remnant was
> unstable and in danger of sudden collapse and had to come down.
Are you claiming that the force of the bomb was insufficient to
disturb the remaining "unstable" portion or that the site could not
be adequately secured by police/guard forces of the United States?
>> I will also kindly request of you to preserve my neatness in the
>> "quote and reply" format so that we do not introduce your confusion.
> It's hardly neat. It's confusing.
Your "quote and reply" introduced many " =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"
characters as substitute for my original spaces, and broke many lines.
Your presence in this discussion introduces FUD, not "fear, uncertainty
and doubt" but fucked-up disinformation. Please curb the " =A0" chars.
>> Nobody doubts the "evidence for Flight 93." The Subject: line
>> here concerns whether "Flight 93" was a shoot-down situation.
> It was not. If you'd been following you would know that the plane hit
> the ground intact. It was not shot down. The nearby corporate jet was
> not a military fighter.
Again your claim to "expertise" appears to be based upon 100%
certainty with regards to your presupposed conclusions and not upon
an "open mind" which you quite likely consider "dangerous" to your
own dogmatic insistences. Was the plane completely reassembled
anywhere from its "intact" remains? Establishing the status of one
nearby jet does not say anything about other fast-movers in the air.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> "-" <jazze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Then, "James B" doesn't appear to understand how interservice
>> operations may work: an O6 might serve as an Army Colonel while
>> attached with an Army Unit, an Air Force Colonel while attached
>> with the Air Force and a Marine Colonel while with the Marines.
"John P." <Jo...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Nope. If you're in the Army and go do some work with the Marines,
> you're still an Army Colonel.
Agreed. However a third-party account of the situation might
easily misreport the facts, while not impinging upon the credibility
assessment of the particular O6 we are discussing. In your effort to
establish that misunderstanding you -elided- my previous remark:
>> Moreover, others might mistakenly assign Don de Grand-Pre so
>> let's reference only what Don de Grand-Pre says about himself, ok?"
Are we now applying my investigative methodology rule to
reference -only- what Don de Grand-Pre says about himself?
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Huge success for BNP in local elections, with London still counting
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=4439
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Iarnrod
> >>> Hell, do a little research on Gen. Ben Partin while you're at it.
> >>> You might be surprised. =A0 "Ben is no conspiracy wacko"
> >>>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3D4224779103128976372
> > "-" wrote:
> >> You're judging him by what you find to be his "unacceptable"
> >> conclusions, mostly those which force you to think and rethink,
> >> rather than by any critique of methodological fallacies.
> > No, we're judghing him by his logical fallacies. He says he knew
> > within "hours" that McVeigh's truck bomb could not have done the
> > damage that it did. But he couldn't have know "within hours" what the
> > bomb was, and he proves his stupidity by still repeating even today
> > his incorrect description of the bomb. It was not a 4,000 pound
> > ammonium nitrate and fuel oil bomb,
>
> > It was on the order of 6,800 pounds of AN plus Tovex plus
> > nitromethane, a chemical fuel used in drag racing. It was not diesel
> > fuel.
>
> > The power of the bomb was much greater than idiot Partin keep going
> > around the country lying about.
>
> Clearly there is room for much lattitude and discrepancy of
> opinion concerning the actual size of the truck bomb explosion,
> compared with the size necessary to accomplish the demonstrated
> effect.
Only if you are ignorant.
Otherwise, no, there is not room for latitude and discrepancy. We know
because McVeigh has told us what he put into it. Partin’s opinions are
total bullshit because primarily he keeps talking about ANFO and it
was not ANFO.
We know nitromethane, not diesel fuel, was used. Your “latitude” is
nothing more than ignorance of the facts.
> Characterizing oneself as an expert merely on account of
> labelling one's opposition as "idiot" is surely cultic and crackpot.
> Where is your own YouTube video supplying contrast argument?
BWAHAHAAAHAAA!!! “YouTube” videos are now evidence in your pathetic
world?? That HAS to be the stupidest thing I’ve heard today, but I
just got up.
Partin is simply wrong on the facts and therefore wrong on his
analysis of his incorrect facts.
> >> Do you disagree with Gen. Ben Partin that OKC Murrah Building
> >> needed to remain for a bit longer pending the -thorough-
> >> investigation? Or are you -opposed- to thorough investigations?
> > A thorough investigation was done. But the building remnant was
> > unstable and in danger of sudden collapse and had to come down.
>
> Are you claiming that the force of the bomb was insufficient to
> disturb the remaining "unstable" portion or that the site could not
> be adequately secured by police/guard forces of the United States?
Police security does not make an unstable structure safe to roam
around in.
> >> I will also kindly request of you to preserve my neatness in the
> >> "quote and reply" format so that we do not introduce your confusion.
> > It's hardly neat. It's confusing.
>
> Your "quote and reply" introduced many " =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"
> characters as substitute for my original spaces, and broke many lines.
That is a fault of your system, not mine. The way you are posting
looks preety darn messy and confusing. I see no “=A0”s in what I am
looking at.
> Your presence in this discussion introduces FUD, not "fear, uncertainty
> and doubt" but fucked-up disinformation. Please curb the " =A0" chars.
As I said, I ain’t doing that, it’s your $1.98 newsreader, squirt.
And my presence in this discussion is wiping the floor with your
ignorant assertions.
> >> Nobody doubts the "evidence for Flight 93." The Subject: line
> >> here concerns whether "Flight 93" was a shoot-down situation.
> > It was not. If you'd been following you would know that the plane hit
> > the ground intact. It was not shot down. The nearby corporate jet was
> > not a military fighter.
>
> Again your claim to "expertise" appears to be based upon 100%
> certainty with regards to your presupposed conclusions and not upon
> an "open mind"…
You have that exactly backward. We know as true all that I have
written. “Open mind” is what describes how I and all others who accept
the truth of 9/11 have arrived at that point. “Presupposed
conclusions” is the perfect description for the kooker twoofers who
have “presupposed” such things as Flight 93 being shot down when all
the evidence contradicts that biased presupposition.
You are the one who is presupposing and having a closed mind to the
evidence. The evidence is in. Flight 93 was not shot down.
> which you quite likely consider "dangerous" to your
> own dogmatic insistences.
I have none. You do.
> Was the plane completely reassembled
> anywhere from its "intact" remains?
Well, not completely since not all of it was recovered. But yes what
was recovered was reassembled.
> Establishing the status of one
> nearby jet does not say anything about other fast-movers in the air.
No but radar does. See, this is more of your “preconceived
conclusions” at work. You need to let evidence take you places, and
not try to force the evidence to come to you.
-
> "-" wrote: (re: OKC truckbomb)
>> Clearly there is room for much lattitude and discrepancy of
>> opinion concerning the actual size of the truck bomb explosion,
>> compared with the size necessary to accomplish the demonstrated
>> effect.
Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Only if you are ignorant.
Ah, the breadth, depth and subtlety of your sophisticated argument !
> Otherwise, no, there is not room for latitude and discrepancy. We
> know because McVeigh has told us what he put into it. Partin=92s
> opinions are total bullshit because primarily he keeps talking about
> ANFO and it was not ANFO.
So McVeigh is now a "reliable witness" yet had to be
terminated so that dead men could tell no tales?
> We know nitromethane, not diesel fuel, was used. Your =93latitude=94
> is nothing more than ignorance of the facts.
Your "knowledge" stems from McVeigh, apparently, so you
have become one of his followers. The point here concerns
whether that truck bomb was the only explosion and, despite
evidence that other explosions occurred, you remain in denial.
>> Characterizing oneself as an expert merely on account of
>> labelling one's opposition as "idiot" is surely cultic and crackpot.
>> Where is your own YouTube video supplying contrast argument?
> BWAHAHAAAHAAA!!! =93YouTube=94 videos are now evidence
> in your pathetic world?? That HAS to be the stupidest thing I=92ve
> heard today, but I just got up.
YouTube is transforming political argument because it supplies
audio-visual evidence of claims to cites formerly found only in text.
Without it we would have to rely upon journalistic hearsay, recently
determined to fall into disrepute on account of jew-controlled media.
> Partin is simply wrong on the facts and therefore wrong on his
> analysis of his incorrect facts.
Partin was asking questions about the other explosions.
Extra explosive power in the truck bomb does not yet suffice.
But I thought we were also discussing Col. Donn de Grand-Pre.
>> Are you claiming that the force of the bomb was insufficient to
>> disturb the remaining "unstable" portion or that the site could not
>> be adequately secured by police/guard forces of the United States?
> Police security does not make an unstable structure safe to roam
> around in.
If the OKC structure was rendered "unstable" why hadn't that
massive explosive force brought down the "unstable" portions?
>> Your "quote and reply" introduced many " =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA=0 =3DA0"
>> characters as substitute for my original spaces, and broke many lines=
> That is a fault of your system, not mine. The way you are posting
> looks preety darn messy and confusing. I see no =93=3DA0=94s in
> what I am looking at.
Maybe you see something now, as do others who work in text.
> ... my presence in this discussion is wiping the floor with your
> ignorant assertions.
I made no -conclusive- assertions, as you have done, so my
mind remains open, unlike the locked steel jaws of your bear trap.
>> ... your claim to "expertise" appears to be based upon 100%
>> certainty with regards to your presupposed conclusions and not
>> upon an "open mind"
> You have that exactly backward. We know as true all that I have
> written. =93Open mind=94 is what describes how I and all others
> who accept the truth of 9/11 have arrived at that point. =93Presupposed
> conclusions=94 is the perfect description for the kooker twoofers who
> have =93presupposed=94 such things as Flight 93 being shot down
> when all the evidence contradicts that biased presupposition.
You're trying to define the -position- of "open mind" but in the
process have closed it by means of your own definition. Simply put,
you would need to suspend judgment and not rush to conclusions
if you are to preserve any opportunity to retain an "open mind."
> You are the one who is presupposing and having a closed mind
> to the evidence. The evidence is in. Flight 93 was not shot down.
Impossible to prove a negative unless you have the entire assembly.
Do you say that the Flight 93 passengers chose to assault the cockpit
and plunge the flight into the ground because they -KNEW- there was
no chance to safely land the plane, as per "normal" hijackings?
>> ... which you quite likely consider "dangerous" to your
>> own dogmatic insistences.
> I have none. You do.
I suspend judgment and pose questions. You do not.
>> Was the plane completely reassembled
>> anywhere from its "intact" remains?
> Well, not completely since not all of it was recovered.
> But yes what was recovered was reassembled.
Where is the reassembly located? Can we view it? You
need to let evidence take you places and not try to force the
evidence to come to you.
>> Establishing the status of one
>> nearby jet does not say anything about other fast-movers in the air.
> No but radar does. See, this is more of your =93preconceived
> conclusions=94 at work.
The same radar which anticipates hijacked planes and
directs the White House to fail at scrambling jet interceptors?
Were they asleep at the switch during a "training" scenario?
- regards
- jb
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.911blogger.com/node/14422
U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation
March 12, 2008
Dear Mr. Monaghan:
This is in reference to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request Number
and civil litigation referenced above, and a follow-up to our initial response
letter dated September 24, 2007.
Upon receipt of your initial FOIA request for "documentation pertaining to any
formally and positively identified debris by the FBI, from all four civilian
commercial aircraft used in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001," we
conducted a preliminary review for potentially responsive documents. At that
time, RIDS understood that any potentially responsive records were located in
a pending file of an ongoing investigation, and therefore determined that they
would be withheld in their entirety. Therefore, you received my initial
determination, in a letter dated September 24, 2007, that the material you
requested is located in an investigative file, which is exempt from disclosure
pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552 (b)(7)(A). An explanation
of this exemption was included in my correspondence. Exemption (b)(7)(A)
protects from disclosure records and information compiled for law enforcement
purposes the release of which could reasonably be expected to interfere with
enforcement proceedings. You were also advised that you could appeal this
denial by writing to the Office of Information and Privacy (OIP), U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ).
You appealed to OlP, and Associate Director Janice Galli McLeod, affirmed the
FBI's determination to withhold any potentially responsive records in their
entirety, because they are protected from disclosure under the FOIA pursuant
to 5 U.S.c., Section 552 (b)(7)(A).
We then received a copy of your complaint for injunctive relief, later
amended, wherein you requested the FBI to "produce agency records, concerning
documentation revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant,
from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, was
positively identified by defendant (with the aid of the National
Transportation Safety Board), as belonging to the said aircraft, presumably
though the use of unique serial number identifying information contained by
the said aircraft wreckage, that was collected by defendant and which
defendant has improperly withheld from plaintiff." The Record/Information
Dissemination Section (RIDS) again conducted a search for potentially
responsive records.
After this extensive research, RIDS has been unable to locate any FBI records
responsive to your request. RIDS' search efforts included verification by the
responsible FBIHQ operational division that because the identity of the three
hijacked aircraft has never been in question by the FBI, NTSB or FAA (since
other evidence collected after 9/11 has all corroborated the fact that
American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines
Flight 77 and United Airlines Flight 93 were the aircraft that were hijacked),
no records would have been generated responsive to your request for documents
"revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from the
aircraft used during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, was
positively identified by defendant (with the aid of the National
Transportation Safety Board), as belonging to the said aircraft, presumably
though the use of unique serial number identifying information contained by
the said aircraft wreckage."
Sincerely yours,
David M. Hardy
Section Chief,
Record/lInformation Dissemination Section
Records Management Division
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Iarnrod
> > "-" wrote: (re: OKC truckbomb)
> >> Clearly there is room for much lattitude and discrepancy of
> >> opinion concerning the actual size of the truck bomb explosion,
> >> compared with the size necessary to accomplish the demonstrated
> >> effect.
>
> Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Only if you are ignorant.
>
>
> Ah, the breadth, depth and subtlety of your sophisticated argument !
True, true. I mean, you would HAVE to be ignorant to believe there is
“room for much latitude and discrepancy” whern the person who MADE the
bomb has told us what was in it. What you call “room for much
latitude” is what the sane world calls “making shit up.”
> > Otherwise, no, there is not room for latitude and discrepancy. We
> > know because McVeigh has told us what he put into it. Partin=92s
> > opinions are total bullshit because primarily he keeps talking about
> > ANFO and it was not ANFO.
>
>
> So McVeigh is now a "reliable witness" yet had to be
> terminated so that dead men could tell no tales?
Yes he is a reliable witness. Physical, documentary and corroborating
evidence back him up. And no, he wasn’t terminated to tell no tales.
He was executed for his crime.
Partin simply forgot to keep following the event. He made stuff up.
> > We know nitromethane, not diesel fuel, was used. Your =93latitude=94
> > is nothing more than ignorance of the facts.
>
>
> Your "knowledge" stems from McVeigh, apparently, so you
> have become one of his followers.
No, my knowledge comes from the evidence in the case – something which
it is obvious you have not studied at all.
> The point here concerns
> whether that truck bomb was the only explosion …
It was.
> and, despite
> evidence that other explosions occurred, you remain in denial.
Please produce your “evidence” of other explosions. <chuckle> I mean,
other than cars in the parking lot across the street that went up.
> >> Characterizing oneself as an expert merely on account of
> >> labelling one's opposition as "idiot" is surely cultic and crackpot.
> >> Where is your own YouTube video supplying contrast argument?
>
> > BWAHAHAAAHAAA!!! =93YouTube=94 videos are now evidence
> > in your pathetic world?? That HAS to be the stupidest thing I=92ve
> > heard today, but I just got up.
>
>
> YouTube is transforming political argument because it supplies
> audio-visual evidence of claims to cites formerly found only in text.
It also provides much lies and fabrication. It is wholly unreliable.
It’s worse than Wikipedia.
> Without it we would have to rely upon journalistic hearsay, recently
> determined to fall into disrepute on account of jew-controlled media.
Ahh, another joooooooooooo-hating paranoid!
> > Partin is simply wrong on the facts and therefore wrong on his
> > analysis of his incorrect facts.
>
>
> Partin was asking questions about the other explosions.
There were no other explosions.
> Extra explosive power in the truck bomb does not yet suffice.
Yes it does.
> But I thought we were also discussing Col. Donn de Grand-Pre.
Why would you “think” that? I’ve never mentioned this Donn de Grand-
Pre person at all. You brought up Partin; him I know about.
> >> Are you claiming that the force of the bomb was insufficient to
> >> disturb the remaining "unstable" portion or that the site could not
> >> be adequately secured by police/guard forces of the United States?
>
> > Police security does not make an unstable structure safe to roam
> > around in.
>
>
> If the OKC structure was rendered "unstable" why hadn't that
> massive explosive force brought down the "unstable" portions?
That’s a pretty stupid question, you know. Are you saying that because
part of the structure did not come down in the initial blast and fire,
that it must be stable? Given the “engineering” opinions of kookers in
general, I expect you do believe that.
> >> Your "quote and reply" introduced many " =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA=0 =3DA0"
> >> characters as substitute for my original spaces, and broke many lines=
>
> > That is a fault of your system, not mine. The way you are posting
> > looks preety darn messy and confusing. I see no =93=3DA0=94s in
> > what I am looking at.
>
>
> Maybe you see something now, as do others who work in text.
No, I don’t work in text. I post through Google. The problem is
entirely on your end.
> > ... my presence in this discussion is wiping the floor with your
> > ignorant assertions.
>
>
> I made no -conclusive- assertions, as you have done, so my
> mind remains open, unlike the locked steel jaws of your bear trap.
No, your mind remains in denial. Those of us who embrace the truth are
not in a bear trap, you are.
You reposted the Devvy Kidd piece; by extension these are your
assertions.
> You're trying to define the -position- of "open mind" but in the
> process have closed it by means of your own definition.
Not at all. You’re quite wrong. Sorry. It was the open mind that led
to the inescapable conclusions. “Open mind” does not mean doubting the
truth once established. OTOH, you have a closed mind in denial of the
facts and evidence.
> > You are the one who is presupposing and having a closed mind
> > to the evidence. The evidence is in. Flight 93 was not shot down.
>
>
> Impossible to prove a negative unless you have the entire assembly.
No, not impossible at all. The plane was observed by numerous
witnesses. It crashed into the ground; it was not struck by a missile.
> Do you say that the Flight 93 passengers chose to assault the cockpit
> and plunge the flight into the ground because they -KNEW- there was
> no chance to safely land the plane, as per "normal" hijackings?
Obviously. They know it was not a “normal” hijacking. They knew about
the WTC attacks.
> >> ... which you quite likely consider "dangerous" to your
> >> own dogmatic insistences.
>
> > I have none. You do.
>
>
> I suspend judgment and pose questions. You do not.
No, you suspend facts and evidence in favor of denial… I have no
“dogmatic insistencies”… that’s kooker territory. I merely follow the
evidence where it goes and have no qualms about where it leads.
> >> Was the plane completely reassembled
> >> anywhere from its "intact" remains?
>
> > Well, not completely since not all of it was recovered.
> > But yes what was recovered was reassembled.
>
>
> Where is the reassembly located? Can we view it? You
> need to let evidence take you places and not try to force the
> evidence to come to you.
I believe at this point UAL has possession, perhaps the insurer. Take
it up with them.
> >> Establishing the status of one
> >> nearby jet does not say anything about other fast-movers in the air.
>
> > No but radar does. See, this is more of your =93preconceived
> > conclusions=94 at work.
>
>
> The same radar which anticipates hijacked planes and
> directs the White House to fail at scrambling jet interceptors?
Radar does not anticipate hijacked planes. Interceptors were
scrambled. Do you make a habit of posing false dilemmas?
> Were they asleep at the switch during a "training" scenario?
No.
-
> "-" wrote:
>> Ah, the breadth, depth and subtlety of your sophisticated argument !
Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> True, true. I mean, you would HAVE to be ignorant to believe there is
> =93room for much latitude and discrepancy=94 whern the person who
> MADE the bomb has told us what was in it. What you call =93room for
> much latitude=94 is what the sane world calls =93making shit up.=94
And so the testimony of a murderer is now "reliable witness" ?
> Partin simply forgot to keep following the event. He made stuff up.
Whether or not AFNO is a relatively small trifling. The question
concerns whether that truck bomb explosion could generate so much
damage to the Murrah Building; whether there were no other bombs.
>>> We know nitromethane, not diesel fuel, was used. Your
>>> =3D93latitude=3D94= is nothing more than ignorance of the facts.
>> Your "knowledge" stems from McVeigh, apparently, so you
>> have become one of his followers.
> No, my knowledge comes from the evidence in the case =96 something
> which it is obvious you have not studied at all.
I am not disputing the conclusion, merely what seems to be your
propensity to conflate what you "believe" with what you "know" ...
>> The point here concerns
>> whether that truck bomb was the only explosion =85
> It was.
Establishing that there were no other explosions seems
again to be proving a negative ... something you are skillful at?
>> ... and, despite
>> evidence that other explosions occurred, you remain in denial.
> Please produce your =93evidence=94 of other explosions. <chuckle>
> I mean, other than cars in the parking lot across the street that went up.
There was a police report, I recall, in which the officer recalls
distinct explosive sounds plus independent seismological data.
Re-visiting this issue is subsidiary to the matter of whether dismissal
of Partin is consonant with the objective of keeping to an open mind.
>> >> Characterizing oneself as an expert merely on account of
>> >> labelling one's opposition as "idiot" is surely cultic and crackpot.
>> >> Where is your own YouTube video supplying contrast argument?
>>
>> > BWAHAHAAAHAAA!!! =3D93YouTube=3D94 videos are now evidence
>> > in your pathetic world?? That HAS to be the stupidest thing I=3D92ve
>> > heard today, but I just got up.
>> YouTube is transforming political argument because it supplies
>> audio-visual evidence of claims to cites formerly found only in text.=
> It also provides much lies and fabrication. It is wholly unreliable.
> It=92s worse than Wikipedia.
Point is to expose lies and fabrication if they are being alleged.
More easily accomplished with YouTube than only with mere text.
For example, a "doctored video" is refuted by an undoctored video.
Wikipedia is not quite so unreliable as to omit discussion pages,
and other off-site metapages that portend to discuss Wikipedia.
>> Without it we would have to rely upon journalistic hearsay, recently
>> determined to fall into disrepute on account of jew-controlled media.=
> Ahh, another joooooooooooo-hating paranoid!
You pretend to exempt Jews from citicism while excoriating
Wikipedia, which is yet another example of jew-controlled media.
>>> Partin is simply wrong on the facts and therefore wrong on his
>>> analysis of his incorrect facts.
>> Partin was asking questions about the other explosions.
> There were no other explosions.
Again, you allege "proof of a negative" when there is none?
>> Extra explosive power in the truck bomb does not yet suffice.
> Yes it does.
Needs to be "proved again" with another Federal building?
>> But I thought we were also discussing Col. Donn de Grand-Pre.
> Why would you =93think=94 that? I=92ve never mentioned this Donn
> de Grand-Pre person at all. You brought up Partin; him I know about.
Partin was quoting Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, which is where
you made your entrance into this thread from the stage trap-door.
Yet another witness for interview, to confirm Flight 93's shootdown.
Or are you affiliated with the Hollywood fabrication, by any chance?
>> If the OKC structure was rendered "unstable" why hadn't that
>> massive explosive force brought down the "unstable" portions?
> That=92s a pretty stupid question, you know. Are you saying that
> because part of the structure did not come down in the initial blast
> and fire, that it must be stable? Given the =93engineering=94 opinions
> of kookers in general, I expect you do believe that.
It's stable until it gets further disturbed by the rubble-cleaners.
Tearing it down on the pretext of being unstable is simply a ruse to
restore the nation's economic confidence in their federal buildings,
and to obscure the trail of thorough investigation. Might have been
advisable instead to invite all "conspiracy wackos" on site for testing
and exhausting their hypotheses. That would be the "American Way"
as Winston Churchill noted: "Americans always get it right after they
have exhausted all of the other options." All explanations were not
being exhausted, which generates uncertainty about inquiry results.
Investigations would have involved dozens of cherry-picker trucks
to minimize climbing about on rubble. Instead, building demolition
proceeded with amazing alacrity, as per "corporate-controlled" govt.
>> Maybe you see something now, as do others who work in text.
> No, I don=92t work in text. I post through Google. The problem is
> entirely on your end.
Others who post through Google don't produce character aliasing.
I suppose it's your choice of font, character-set, or a Macintosh.
>> I made no -conclusive- assertions, as you have done, so my
>> mind remains open, unlike the locked steel jaws of your bear trap.
> No, your mind remains in denial. Those of us who embrace
> the truth are not in a bear trap, you are. You reposted the Devvy
> Kidd piece; by extension these are your assertions.
Devvy Kidd piece was opposed to those in denial of Flight 93's
existence, or denial of the Flight 93 crash. She conducted many
interviews which began to develop complications, among them the
premise of a possible shootdown. Though generally correct I don't
need to claim she is correct about everything all of the time. The
point here concerns whether any daylight is granted between the
lead article for this thread and opportunity for third-party discussion.
Reporting, relaying of article contents, is not the same as assertion.
They are her assertions and we have independent responses. BTW,
appreciation for multifaceted complex positions can signal open mind.
>> You're trying to define the -position- of "open mind" but in the
>> process have closed it by means of your own definition.
> Not at all. You=92re quite wrong. Sorry. It was the open mind that led
> to the inescapable conclusions. =93Open mind=94 does not mean
> doubting the truth once established. OTOH, you have a closed mind
> in denial of the facts and evidence.
Nobody needs to doubt established truth to accept, along with
Kurt Vonnegut, the possibility that everybody is right. That there
might be different versions of established truth and variances in
how the established truth comes to be perceived. Moreover it is
possible for the establishment to be in error concerning the truth
and so there are major revolutions even in science and religion.
In order for something to become "established" it must be
adopted as the suitable explanation by everyone qualified to pass
judgment on the matter. When highly qualified individuals are not
all in agreement then it is premature to lay claim to established truth.
The factor of many religions not all in agreement should say to each
religious believer that what they suppose to be correct is by no means
a matter of knowledge but merely fishing about in the dark with belief.
>> > You are the one who is presupposing and having a closed mind
>> > to the evidence. The evidence is in. Flight 93 was not shot down.
>> Impossible to prove a negative unless you have the entire assembly.
> No, not impossible at all. The plane was observed by numerous
> witnesses. It crashed into the ground; it was not struck by a missile.
Those numerous witnesses were able to confirm from afar that
Flight 93 was not disabled on account of having a missle up its ass?
>> Do you say that the Flight 93 passengers chose to assault the cockpit
>> and plunge the flight into the ground because they -KNEW- there was
>> no chance to safely land the plane, as per "normal" hijackings?
> Obviously. They know it was not a =93normal=94 hijacking.
> They knew about the WTC attacks.
Then you just add a few sprinkles of heroism and a dash of
impulse -- voila! -- a Hollywood screenplay in the making. If the
end result is death for passengers in either case, weighed against
the risks of implausible inference then perhaps it is not very wise
to rely upon implausible inference for the sake of a certain death.
Perhaps more likely for the world to end with a whimper than a
bang: people are passive. They prefer the inflight movie over a
terrorist "training" scenario with choice among dubious outcomes.
If the hijackers planned only to land the plane at an airport then
your so-called "heroes" would become actual terrorists there.
Really might be a -difference- between hijackers and terrorists.
Where are cellphone transcripts about a "knowlege" of attacks?
>>>> ... which you quite likely consider "dangerous" to your
>>>> own dogmatic insistences.
>>> I have none. You do.
>> I suspend judgment and pose questions. You do not.
> No, you suspend facts and evidence in favor of denial=85 I have no
> =93dogmatic insistencies=94=85 that=92s kooker territory. I merely follow
> the evidence where it goes and have no qualms about where it leads.
So you were not following evidence from the plane's remains?
>>>> Was the plane completely reassembled
>>>> anywhere from its "intact" remains?
>>> Well, not completely since not all of it was recovered.
>>> But yes what was recovered was reassembled.
>> Where is the reassembly located? Can we view it? You
>> need to let evidence take you places and not try to force the
>> evidence to come to you.
> I believe at this point UAL has possession, perhaps the insurer.
> Take it up with them.
What you formerly termed "knowledge" is instead "belief" ?
Will you not share that advice to examine the evidence and let
it take you places? Why are we arguing over whether to examine
that evidence? At this late juncture why would you not examine
all of the evidence, which you have not yet seen, with me?
>>>> Establishing the status of one nearby jet does not
>>>> say anything about other fast-movers in the air.
>>> No but radar does. See, this is more of your
>>> =3D93preconceived conclusions=3D94 at work.
>> The same radar which anticipates hijacked planes and
>> directs the White House to fail at scrambling jet interceptors?
> Radar does not anticipate hijacked planes. Interceptors were
> scrambled. Do you make a habit of posing false dilemmas?
Interceptors were scrambled for Flight 93 but did not show
up on the radar?
>> Were they asleep at the switch during a "training" scenario?
> No.
Then why did they need to order a fresh pot of coffee?
- regards
- jb
-------------------------------------------------------
http://piratenews.org/flight93.html
http://piratenews.org/ua93p2.html
-------------------------------------------------------
age...@justicespammail.com
This has been hashed and rehashed years ago.
From: Sheldon Sheps (jugg...@interlog.com)
Subject: MAM: OKC and the Partin Report.
Newsgroups: misc.activism.militia
Date: 1997/11/20
As many of you know, I've been investigating the OKC bombing and the
multiple bomb theories.
Almost every multiple bomb theory comes back to Benton Partin's
report. I've found a number of problems with that report.
Here's a few I'll discuss now. Yes, there are more.
1. Partin says that the pressure at the column nearest the bomb was
375 psi. Using this pressure and other information supplied by
Partin, we can calculate that Partin is stating that the center of the
bomb (or whatever he uses as a starting point) is 24.2 feet from the
nearest column.
For Partin's purposes, this is an error. Remember, Partin says that
the government explanation is impossible. Therefore, he has to give
the government the benefit of the doubt on each part of its
explanation. He does so when he assumes that the bomb is perfectly
made and creates a perfectly spherical pressure wave. Yet, this
distance is very wrong.
The correct distance from the center of the crater to the nearest
column is 15.6 . This figure is used in the FEMA/ASCE book on the OKC
bombing. That's a big difference from 24.2 feet because of the
rapidly decreasing incident pressure of a bomb.
You can calculate the distance at 375 psi using Partin's formula or
you can simply count the number of rings in the diagram that is part
of Partin's report (Tab 2). Each ring is 1 radius which is 2.2 feet.
This 2.2 feet radius = the 4.4 ft diameter that Partin specifies in
his report.
----------------------------------
2. How can Partin place the bomb that far away when he is quoted in
the August 7, 1995 The New American at p.6 as saying:
"The truck bomb was not in front of column A3 [real name G24] as I
had originally shown in my diagram...but instead, AS THE CRATER
SHOWS, [emphasis added], about 15 feet out from columns A4 and A5
[real name G20]."
The problem is that if Partin is relying on the crater for the
distance from the side of the building, then he also has to rely on it
for the distance up or down the street from the column.
The only way you can come up with a distance of 24.2 feet when the
distance from the bomb to the side of the building is 15 feet is to
put the center of the bomb 19 feet along the street from the column.
According to the FEMA/ASCE monograph, the correct distances are 14
feet from the side of the building to the center of the crater and 7
feet along the street for a range of 15.6 feet.
3. Has anyone seen a correction by Partin where he says that he should
have used a range of 15.6 feet instead of 24.2 feet? After all, the
distances from the crater to the column I'm using are those in the
FEMA/ASCE report of August, 1996.
4 When you calculate USING PARTIN's formula the pressure at 15.6 feet,
the pressure is approximately 1400 psi. Partin's formula is
contained in the so-called Eglin AFB Blast Effects Study.
Confirmation that the pressure at 15.6 feet is 1400 psi according to
Partin comes from Partin's diagram (Tab 2) . Count 7 rings out and
the pressure is 1457 psi. This distance is 7 x 2.2 feet = 15.4 feet.
-----------------------------
5. An incident pressure of 1400 psi isn't sufficient to shatter the
concrete that has a strength of 5000 psi ( or is it ......?) . But
it is sufficient to show that Partin's report is badly flawed, using
his own formula.
****
Then one has to remember:
A joint (Federal/State/local) preliminary damage assessment (PDA)
of the impacted area occurred on April 25 to determine requirements.
Initial estimates show that 19 buildings will be condemned, 199 are
damaged, and 75 will require significant repair."
Then consider the damage area which was not centered on the Murrah
building. It ran from 2 blocks south to 19 blocks north, indicating
that the Murrah building absorbed a tremendous amount of energy
protecting the southern exposure.
****
And:
In another story at the time, Doug Loizeaux, vice president of
Controlled Demolitions Inc., said that the transfer beam's failure
was the key to the building's collapse. Once the transfer beam went,
he said, the rest of the building went into a progressive collapse.
You see it wasn't the bomb that did most of the damage to the
building, it was gravity.
Partin makes a passing remark about 5 psi being enough to knock over
frame buildings. He ignores the rest of the analysis from which this
number came. There was an article titled "The Prompt and Delayed
Effects of Nuclear War", by Kevin N. Lewis in the July 1979 issue of
Scientific American beginning on page 35. Specifically:
"Each city has a unique set of target characteristics, but some simple
rules make it possible to predict damage and fatalities. In general
any structure not specifically designed for blast resistance would be
destroyed if it were exposed to an overpressure of five or more pounds
per square inch (p.s.i.) above the ambient atmospheric pressure of
some 15 p.s.i., and those structures that would not actually collapse
would typically be damaged beyond repair. Some reinforced buildings
(and heavy equipment inside them) could withstand an overpressure of
40 p.s.i. or more, but .... Still, as a rule of thumb an overpressure
of 5 p.s.i. is considered sufficient to destroy most structures."
Note the last part: SOME reinforced buildings could withstand an
overpressure of 40 PSI. By Partin's own calcuations, the Murrah
building was exposed to much more than this. And then "...an
overpressure of 5 PSI is considered sufficient to DESTROY MOST
STRUCTURES. Not frame structures, MOST STRUCTURES.
Here are some more extensive quotes I found in my computer files from
two of the above referenced stories:
The referenced article by Paul Weidlinger appeared in the November
1994 issue of Civil Engineering, pages 48-50. Couple of excerpts:
Civilian Structures: Taking the Defensive by Paul Weidlinger
...
What actually occurs during an explosion? An explosion in air is a
sudden, nearly instantaneous, release of energy converted into a
spherically expanding shock wave that consists of air compressed to a
very high ambient overpressure. The sudden pressure increase decays
in a short time interval from its initial peak value. As the shock
wave advances with supersonic velocity its initial peak pressure
decreases.
The energy content of 1 lb of TNT is 2.1 x 10^6 joule. A car bomb
containing 1,000 lb of TNT produces a peak ambient overpressure of
approximately 1,000 psi at a distance of 10 ft from the geometric
center of the charge that advances at a shock veolicity equal to 10
times the speed of sound. At a distance of 100 fe, this peak will
have decayed to an overpressure of 10 psi. (A civilian structure is
designed to support a static load of about 1 psi.) If this advancing
shock front encounters a rigid obstruction such as a floor or a wall
at a distance of 10 ft, the peak pressure is reflected and amplified
by a factor of nine. When the explosion occurs in the interior of a
building, reflections from floors, ceilings and walls produce a very
irregular pressure-time function that contains numerous peaks due to
multiple reflections.
This highly condensed description of the physical phenomena of
shock-wave propagation defines the input, or loading, function needed
to obtain the dynamic response of a structure subjected to the air
blast generated by an explosion. Further ecomplexity is added in the
case of internal explosion because the waveform (i.e., loading
function) may be drasticallly modified due to interactin with the
large deformation response of the structure, including the destruction
of some of the floors and slabs. This interaction alters the path and
reflections of the shock wave.
Occupants of the structure will be at risk due to direct exposure to
the air blast, flying debris, fire, and partial or total (progressive)
collapse of the structure. Some, but not all, of these effects may be
mitigated by appropriate engineering desing and architectural
planning.
... Continues
.The external car bomb: The physics and methodology of protecitve
design requirements are well developed and well understood for this
trheat. Medium and low-rise (about 10 stories high) structures are
usually quite vulnerable close-in external explosions. The most
effective countermeasure consists of keeping the car bomb as far as
possible from the building, which often requires additional real
estate. The new U.S. embassy buildings, for example, are set back
about 100 feet from a protective perimeter wall so that the structure
is designed to withstand an explosive threat located at a distance of
100 feet. The buildings contain reinforced exterior wall supported by
a framing system that has a lateral resistance comparable to that
required to survive a large-magnitude earthquake.
...more
Design Could Have Been Another Enemy
The New York Times, Friday, April 28, 1995, page A12
by Matthew L. Wald
Whether they knew it or not, the terrorists who blew up the Oklahoma
City Federal Building chose a target whose architecture might have
made it more vulnerable to bomb damagbe than other designs.
The building's front had four large columns supporting a horizontal
beam, creating a two-story atrium -- a common design for low- to
medium-rise buildings. Starting above the beam, other columns rose
the rest of the way up the nine-story building.
When the blast eliminated three of the four columns under the beam,
the beam come down, and then the building's upper floors "dominoed all
the way down," said Robert A. Wright, and architect with Locke &
Wright in Oklahoma City, a successor to the company that designed the
building.
The death toll was high because in the progressive collapse of the
building, one section after another fell and crushed people
underneath.
In contrast, when a similar bomb exploded under the World Trade
Center, it blew out several concrete floors, killing six people, but
the building's skeleton survived. Thousands of people were able to
escape with nothing worse than smoke inhalation and twisted ankles.
The Trade Center's columns were building in a straight line, from
the sub-basement to the top, to bear the weight of 110 stories. Very
strong at their base, they were not easily damaged by a bomb.
The Oklahoma bomb may have been larger than the World Trade Center
bomb, perhaps with twice its force. Mr. Wright said the Federal
Building had performed well under....
---
<Sorry, my Xeroxing cut off a couple of paragraphs - grrrrr>
---
... structural engineer who is an expert in how to harden building to
withstand terrorist attacks. And an article in the November issue of
Civil Engineering by a New York engineer, Paul Weidlinger, noted,
"Medium and low-rise structures are usually quite vulnerable to
close-in external explosions."
The way to reduce bomb damage, experts agree, is to keep cars and
trucks away from the building. Mr. Weidlinger pointed out that a car
bomb with 1,000 pounds of explosives produces a force of 1,000 pounds
per square inch at a distance of 10 feet -- say, the distance from a
curb to a building front.
"At a distance of 100 feet, this will have decayed to an
overpressure of 10 pounds per square inch," he wrote. Most buildings,
he said, are designed to support a steady load of about one pound per
square inch.
Damage can also be reduced by the way the building is constructed,
experts say. Mr. Crist said that in building skeletons where the
columns, beams and floors are tied together very tightly, if one of
those elements is lost, the others can take up the load. In a good
building, "load can be transferred from beam to beam, beam to column,
floor to beam, etc.," said a study Mr. Crist co-wrote for the National
Academy of Sciences in 1988.
The Federal Building in Oklahoma City may also have been vulnerable
because of its ground-level atrium and glass facade. The problem was
not with flying glass -- a small hazard compared with collapsing
concrete -- but with the way the blast was able to penetrate the glass
easily and push up the floors at the lower levels, some experts said.
Anatol Longinow, an engineer at Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, a
firm in Chicago that investigates structural failures, said that when
a bomb goes off at street level, the blast "expands sperically, and it
hits the floors up instead of down," by coming in under them.
"The floors are not intended to go up in any event," he said. If
pushed in a direction opposite from normal, he said, the floors may
break loose relatively easily and crash down in a pancakelike pile."
Unfortunately, much of the legitimate analysis and pictures of the
Murrah explosion (such as the NFPA report) have been removed from the
Internet with the passage of time. But the report done by Failure
Associates should be available from a good bookstore though you would
probably have to order it. Unfortunately, I don't remember the
author's name exactly, seems like it was Eve Weidner or something
similar.
Iarnrod
> Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > True, true. I mean, you would HAVE to be ignorant to believe there is
> > =93room for much latitude and discrepancy=94 whern the person who
> > MADE the bomb has told us what was in it. What you call =93room for
> > much latitude=94 is what the sane world calls =93making shit up.=94
> And so the testimony of a murderer is now "reliable witness" ?
You keep missing the part where his story is corroborated by the
physical, documentary and other evidence.
> > Partin simply forgot to keep following the event. He made stuff up.
> Whether or not AFNO is a relatively small trifling.
That shows you don’t know what you’re talking about. Taking out the
“FO” from the “AN” and substituting nitromethane makes quite a bit of
difference.
> The question
> concerns whether that truck bomb explosion could generate so much
> damage to the Murrah Building; whether there were no other bombs.
And what you call “trifling” is what accounts for it, sport.
If you understood this, you’d realize how silly your answer is.
> I am not disputing the conclusion, merely what seems to be your
> propensity to conflate what you "believe" with what you "know" ...
Sorry, but I don’t do that. *You* do, but not I.
> >> The point here concerns
> >> whether that truck bomb was the only explosion =85
>
> > It was.
>
> Establishing that there were no other explosions seems
> again to be proving a negative ... something you are skillful at?
Establishing that there were no other explosions is easy. It would be
proving that there were MORE that would be not easy. <chuckle>
> > Please produce your =93evidence=94 of other explosions. <chuckle>
> > I mean, other than cars in the parking lot across the street that went up.
>
>
> There was a police report, I recall, in which the officer recalls
> distinct explosive sounds plus independent seismological data.
> Re-visiting this issue is subsidiary …
Surrender accepted.
> to the matter of whether dismissal
> of Partin is consonant with the objective of keeping to an open mind.
Dismissal of Partin is very easy. He completely lacks credibility on
the OKC issue; he’s been shown wrong for years but keeps repeating his
errors in public no less. Poor old galoot.
> >> YouTube is transforming political argument because it supplies
> >> audio-visual evidence of claims to cites formerly found only in text.=
>
> > It also provides much lies and fabrication. It is wholly unreliable.
> > It=92s worse than Wikipedia.
>
>
> Point is to expose lies and fabrication if they are being alleged.
Yet so many more are engendered!
> More easily accomplished with YouTube than only with mere text.
So are lies.
> >> Without it we would have to rely upon journalistic hearsay, recently
> >> determined to fall into disrepute on account of jew-controlled media.=
>
> > Ahh, another joooooooooooo-hating paranoid!
>
>
> You pretend to exempt Jews from citicism while excoriating
> Wikipedia, which is yet another example of jew-controlled media.
When did I “pretend to exempt Jews” from anything? More paranoia at
work, I’m afraid. I really don’t keep track of the true joooo-haters
here except the one-trick wonders, so I was expressing mild “aha”
surprise that you are one of them.
> >>> Partin is simply wrong on the facts and therefore wrong on his
> >>> analysis of his incorrect facts.
>
> >> Partin was asking questions about the other explosions.
>
> > There were no other explosions.
> Again, you allege "proof of a negative" when there is none?
No, I state there were no other explosions because there were none.
> >> Extra explosive power in the truck bomb does not yet suffice.
>
> > Yes it does.
>
> Needs to be "proved again" with another Federal building?
No.
> >> But I thought we were also discussing Col. Donn de Grand-Pre.
>
> > Why would you =93think=94 that? I=92ve never mentioned this Donn
> > de Grand-Pre person at all. You brought up Partin; him I know about.
>
> Partin was quoting Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, which is where
> you made your entrance into this thread from the stage trap-door.
Surrender accepted again. As you note, I never once mentioned Grand-
Pre. My expertise is in Partin and OKC, and commented on that.
> Yet another witness for interview, to confirm Flight 93's shootdown.
Flight 93 was not shot down. That’s irrefutably true.
> Or are you affiliated with the Hollywood fabrication, by any chance?
BWAHAHAAHAAAHAAAA!!!! Hollywood??? WTF are you talking about now!!
> >> If the OKC structure was rendered "unstable" why hadn't that
> >> massive explosive force brought down the "unstable" portions?
>
> > That=92s a pretty stupid question, you know. Are you saying that
> > because part of the structure did not come down in the initial blast
> > and fire, that it must be stable? Given the =93engineering=94 opinions
> > of kookers in general, I expect you do believe that.
>
>
> It's stable until it gets further disturbed by the rubble-cleaners.
> Tearing it down on the pretext of being unstable is simply a ruse to
> restore the nation's economic confidence in their federal buildings,
> and to obscure the trail of thorough investigation.
No, demolishing it is simply a way to remove the unstable remaining
structure.
So I take it you really do believe that any part of a building that
doesn’t collapse in an initial blast must be stable?
> Investigations would have involved dozens of cherry-picker trucks
> to minimize climbing about on rubble. Instead, building demolition
> proceeded with amazing alacrity, as per "corporate-controlled" govt.
A fanciful fabrication, that.
You’re quite adept at making things up with no evidence at all. This
of course is the kooker stock in trade.
> >> Maybe you see something now, as do others who work in text.
>
> > No, I don=92t work in text. I post through Google. The problem is
> > entirely on your end.
>
>
> Others who post through Google don't produce character aliasing.
Neither do I. It is YOUR newsreader and service. No one else with whom
I exchange replies does this but you. It is you.
> I suppose it's your choice of font, character-set, or a Macintosh.
Nope. It’s you.
> appreciation for multifaceted complex positions can signal open mind.
And rejection of the facts and evidence can signal denial. Rejection
of facts and evidence in order to cling to physically impossible
fabrications is not “open mind,” it’s “closed mind.”
> Nobody needs to doubt established truth to accept, along with
> Kurt Vonnegut, the possibility that everybody is right. That there
> might be different versions of established truth and variances in
> how the established truth comes to be perceived.
But there cannot be different versions consisting of “plane was not
shot down” and “plane was shot down.”
> In order for something to become "established" it must be
> adopted as the suitable explanation by everyone qualified to pass
> judgment on the matter.
As is 9/11.
> When highly qualified individuals are not
> all in agreement then it is premature to lay claim to established truth.
We’re long past that time.
> > No, not impossible at all. The plane was observed by numerous
> > witnesses. It crashed into the ground; it was not struck by a missile.
>
> Those numerous witnesses were able to confirm from afar that
> Flight 93 was not disabled on account of having a missle up its ass?
Correct. There was no missile. No shoot down. No military fighter jet.
None of that. Correct. Can’t have a shoot-down without those!
> >> Do you say that the Flight 93 passengers chose to assault the cockpit
> >> and plunge the flight into the ground because they -KNEW- there was
> >> no chance to safely land the plane, as per "normal" hijackings?
>
> > Obviously. They know it was not a =93normal=94 hijacking.
> > They knew about the WTC attacks.
>
> Then you just add a few sprinkles of heroism and a dash of
> impulse -- voila! -- a Hollywood screenplay in the making.
The fact that it happened this way doesn’t make it not happen this
way.
> If the
> end result is death for passengers in either case, weighed against
> the risks of implausible inference then perhaps it is not very wise
> to rely upon implausible inference for the sake of a certain death.
> Perhaps more likely for the world to end with a whimper than a
> bang: people are passive. They prefer the inflight movie over a
> terrorist "training" scenario with choice among dubious outcomes.
> If the hijackers planned only to land the plane at an airport then
> your so-called "heroes" would become actual terrorists there.
> Really might be a -difference- between hijackers and terrorists.
> Where are cellphone transcripts about a "knowlege" of attacks?
Do you not even have a rudimentary acquaintance with the available
facts and evidence in this case?
> >> I suspend judgment and pose questions. You do not.
>
> > No, you suspend facts and evidence in favor of denial=85 I have no
> > =93dogmatic insistencies=94=85 that=92s kooker territory. I merely follow
> > the evidence where it goes and have no qualms about where it leads.
>
> So you were not following evidence from the plane's remains?
WTF?
> >>>> Was the plane completely reassembled
> >>>> anywhere from its "intact" remains?
>
> >>> Well, not completely since not all of it was recovered.
> >>> But yes what was recovered was reassembled.
>
> >> Where is the reassembly located? Can we view it? You
> >> need to let evidence take you places and not try to force the
> >> evidence to come to you.
>
> > I believe at this point UAL has possession, perhaps the insurer.
> > Take it up with them.
>
> What you formerly termed "knowledge" is instead "belief" ?
No, that’s your lack of reading comprehension at work. You are
conflating answers to two different questions and attacking your
incorrect synthesis of them.
> Will you not share that advice to examine the evidence and let
> it take you places?
I did and I am already at the finish line.
> Why are we arguing over whether to examine
> that evidence? At this late juncture why would you not examine
> all of the evidence, which you have not yet seen, with me?
Because I’m done; you’re the one who needs to travel the road to get
here. But you’ll have to get out of your state of denial and develop a
truly open mind, rather than just brag about having one while it’s
closed.
> Interceptors were scrambled for Flight 93 but did not show
> up on the radar?
They didn’t get close to Flight 93.
-
>> Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> True, true. I mean, you would HAVE to be ignorant to believe there is
>>> MADE the bomb has told us what was in it. What you call =3D93room for
>>> much latitude=3D94 is what the sane world calls =3D93making shit up.=3D9=4
> "-" wrote:
>> And so the testimony of a murderer is now "reliable witness" ?
Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You keep missing the part where his story is corroborated by the
> physical, documentary and other evidence.
If so, then you keep missing the point where you are introducing
McVeigh as the evidentiary witness instead of those corroborations.
>>> Partin simply forgot to keep following the event. He made stuff up.
>> Whether or not AFNO is a relatively small trifling.
> That shows you don=92t know what you=92re talking about. Taking
> out the =93FO=94 from the =93AN=94 and substituting nitromethane
> makes quite a bit o=f difference.
That's the mythology. The ordinary bomb doesn't suffice so the
bomb is conceived to be much larger and then the larger bomb is
supposed to suffice.
>> The question
>> concerns whether that truck bomb explosion could generate so much
>> damage to the Murrah Building; whether there were no other bombs.
> And what you call =93trifling=94 is what accounts for it, sport.
> If you understood this, you=92d realize how silly your answer is.
If you'll once again glace at the Subject: line here you'll find
that we are discussing the story of Flight 93. Partin was cited by
Kidd as reporting a remark from Col. Donn de Grand-Pre who says
that there was a shootdown with a pilot who performed shootdown.
You sought to "interrupt the chain" by attacking Partin's credibility.
Not clear from your argument that Partin's credibility is impeached.
Yet the point cocnerning Flight 93 doesn't rely upon Partin; this is a
report from Col. Donn de Grand-Pre about whom you have nothing
to say. All you've accomplished is the parading of your "schtick."
Corroboration from Col. Donn de Grand-Pre is our resolution here.
>> I am not disputing the conclusion, merely what seems to be your
>> propensity to conflate what you "believe" with what you "know" ...
> Sorry, but I don=92t do that. *You* do, but not I.
We have documentary evidence that you conflate knowledge
with belief. You claimed knowledge that there is a Flight 93 plane
reassembly but have only belief concerning its whereabouts.
>> Establishing that there were no other explosions seems
>> again to be proving a negative ... something you are skillful at?
> Establishing that there were no other explosions is easy. It would be
> proving that there were MORE that would be not easy. <chuckle>
Though I don't claim to -know- that there were other explosions.
There was merely a possibility that some evidence might indicate so.
By contrast you have asserted knowledgeably that there were no others,
though to establish your knowledge you would need to prove a negative.
Yet another example where you have conflated knowledge with belief.
>>> Please produce your =3D93evidence=3D94 of other explosions. <chuckle>
>>> I mean, other than cars in the parking lot across the street that went u=p.
>> There was a police report, I recall, in which the officer recalls
>> distinct explosive sounds plus independent seismological data.
>> Re-visiting this issue is subsidiary to the matter of whether dismissal
>> of Partin is consonant with the objective of keeping to an open mind.
> Surrender accepted.
Obviously you have in the past relied upon your bullying techniques
to "win" arguments with the result that you have arrived at incorrect
conclusions. Your methods here put everything else into suspicion.
Did you find any offer of "surrender"? You confabulated an assertion!
> Dismissal of Partin is very easy. He completely lacks credibility on
> the OKC issue; he=92s been shown wrong for years but keeps
> repeating his errors in public no less. Poor old galoot.
He presents an array of independent points and you have been
obsessing over a trivial detail. There is no "house of cards" all
dependent upon the resolution of one point. There is the matter of
sloppy investigative methodology and haste in a rush to conclusions.
>>>> YouTube is transforming political argument because it supplies
>>>> audio-visual evidence of claims to cites formerly found only in text.=
>> > It also provides much lies and fabrication. It is wholly unreliable.
>> > It=3D92s worse than Wikipedia.
>> Point is to expose lies and fabrication if they are being alleged.
> Yet so many more are engendered!
An engendering of further lies is not the result of YouTube media.
It is a feature of human nature which occurs also in text, even more so.
Apparently the game of "lie detection" is not one very familiar to you.
>> More easily accomplished with YouTube than only with mere text.
> So are lies.
The question here concerns "lie detection" at the end of the day.
Exposing those lies via YouTube is more efficient than by text.
Having several cameras recording an event provides incomparable
opportunity over prospects of several reporters writing shorthand.
The difficulty of forging video is much worse than forging text.
>> You pretend to exempt Jews from citicism while excoriating
>> Wikipedia, which is yet another example of jew-controlled media.
> When did I =93pretend to exempt Jews=94 from anything? More
> paranoia at work, I=92m afraid. I really don=92t keep track of the true
> joooo-haters here except the one-trick wonders, so I was expressing
> mild =93aha=94 surprise that you are one of them.
When did I say I was a joo hater? Jews are merely Satan's Spawn
defeated by the Sword of Jesus. My sentiments are irrelevant.
>>>> Partin was asking questions about the other explosions.
>>> There were no other explosions.
>> Again, you allege "proof of a negative" when there is none?
> No, I state there were no other explosions because there were none.
So you have no proof that there were no other explosions.
>>>> But I thought we were also discussing Col. Donn de Grand-Pre.
>>> Why would you =3D93think=3D94 that? I=3D92ve never mentioned this
>>> Donn de Grand-Pre person at all. You brought up Partin; him I know about.
>> Partin was quoting Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, which is where
>> you made your entrance into this thread from the stage trap-door.
> Surrender accepted again. As you note, I never once mentioned Grand-
> Pre. My expertise is in Partin and OKC, and commented on that.
I'll remind you again of the Subject: line here, and where you are.
One Flight 93 shootdown story stems from Col. Donn de Grand-Pre.
You do not shoot down that shootdown story by attacking Partin.
>> Yet another witness for interview, to confirm Flight 93's shootdown.
> Flight 93 was not shot down. That=92s irrefutably true.
You advise following evidentiary trails yet you cannot say where
that trail leads once asking for a location of Flight 93's reassembly.
>> Or are you affiliated with the Hollywood fabrication, by any chance?
> BWAHAHAAHAAAHAAAA!!!! Hollywood??? WTF are you talking about now!!
Surely you are not unaware of the Hollywood movie version?
> (Re: stability or instability of the OKC building rubble)
>> It's stable until it gets further disturbed by the rubble-cleaners.
>> Tearing it down on the pretext of being unstable is simply a ruse to
>> restore the nation's economic confidence in their federal buildings,
>> and to obscure the trail of thorough investigation.
> No, demolishing it is simply a way to remove the unstable remaining
> structure.
> So I take it you really do believe that any part of a building that
> doesn=92t collapse in an initial blast must be stable?
No, it's not stable but it's not exactly unstable. Middle-ground
between the extremes might be an unfamiliar perspective for you.
>> Investigations would have involved dozens of cherry-picker trucks
>> to minimize climbing about on rubble. Instead, building demolition
>> proceeded with amazing alacrity, as per "corporate-controlled" govt.
> A fanciful fabrication, that.
> You=92re quite adept at making things up with no evidence at all.
> This of course is the kooker stock in trade.
Corporations are among the chief deniers of conspiracy reality.
After all they are conspirators themselves with plausible deniability.
>>>> Maybe you see something now, as do others who work in text.
>>> No, I don=3D92t work in text. I post through Google. The problem
>>> is entirely on your end.
>> Others who post through Google don't produce character aliasing.
> Neither do I. It is YOUR newsreader and service. No one else with
> whom I exchange replies does this but you. It is you.
My newsreader is configured to detect FUD produces like you.
>> I suppose it's your choice of font, character-set, or a Macintosh.
> Nope. It=92s you.
Wrong answer. It's really your choice of font, not system or terminal.
> ...rejection of the facts and evidence can signal denial. Rejection
> of facts and evidence in order to cling to physically impossible
> fabrications is not =93open mind,=94 it=92s =93closed mind.=94
Was it physically impossible to shoot down Flight 93? You
seem to believe that radar could scrub the airspace and that the
passengers-turned-terrorist composed a Hollywood screenplay so
that filmgoers would obtain the historical record of their "heroism."
Nobody rejects facts. Facts are established by juries in the context
of struct evidentiary rules, rules of prodecure, and rules of appeal.
>> Nobody needs to doubt established truth to accept, along with
>> Kurt Vonnegut, the possibility that everybody is right. That there
>> might be different versions of established truth and variances in
>> how the established truth comes to be perceived.
> But there cannot be different versions consisting of =93plane was
> not shot down=94 and =93plane was shot down.=94
On the way to discovery of truth there can be many unexpected
twists and turns. If you were more familiar with suspended judgment
then you might gain better understanding of scientific method, which
by definition is not generally the province of an ordinary investigator.
Scientific method relies upon peer review so one individual is not a
source of science until there is independent verification of hypothesis.
One does not "lose" credibility by suspended judgment or deliberation.
On the contrary, those who rush to conclusions risk loss of credibility.
>> In order for something to become "established" it must be
>> adopted as the suitable explanation by everyone qualified to pass
>> judgment on the matter.
> As is 9/11.
Though in a society of democracy how many do you suppose
are "qualified to pass judgment on the matter" ? Why did the 9/11
Commission pursue directions for inquiry entirely at variance to the
concerns and questions being expressed by newsgroup posters?
>> When highly qualified individuals are not all in agreement
>> then it is premature to lay claim to established truth.
> We=92re long past that time.
Yes, by now it is quite obvious that highly qualified individuals
are not all in agreement. Those who rush to judgment are in
denial of deliberated discovery procedures by scientific method.
>>> No, not impossible at all. The plane was observed by numerous
>>> witnesses. It crashed into the ground; it was not struck by a missile.
>> Those numerous witnesses were able to confirm from afar that
>> Flight 93 was not disabled on account of having a missle up its ass?
> Correct. There was no missile. No shoot down. No military fighter jet.
> None of that. Correct. Can=92t have a shoot-down without those!
Focus on those numerous eyewitnesses from afar. You claim
that those numerous eyewitnesses on the scene instantly confirmed
that there was no missile and no military fighter jet? How could
those numerous eyewitnesses -determine- such convenient facts?
They saw a plane in trouble falling out of the sky. They knew what
was the cause and what was not the cause, with instant insanity?
Or was this again a similar sort of conflation of knowledge and
belief for which you are becoming quite famous?
>>>> Do you say that the Flight 93 passengers chose to assault the cockpit
>>>> and plunge the flight into the ground because they -KNEW- there was
>>>> no chance to safely land the plane, as per "normal" hijackings?
>>> Obviously. They know it was not a =3D93normal=3D94 hijacking.
>>> They knew about the WTC attacks.
>> Then you just add a few sprinkles of heroism and a dash of
>> impulse -- voila! -- a Hollywood screenplay in the making.
> The fact that it happened this way doesn=92t make it not happen this way.
You're saying that they weren't on a cellphone call to Hollywood
so that screenwriters could obtain accurate accounts of the dialogue?
How do you prove that negative? Yet cellphones don't work very
well at high altitude, do they?
>> If the
>> end result is death for passengers in either case, weighed against
>> the risks of implausible inference then perhaps it is not very wise
>> to rely upon implausible inference for the sake of a certain death.
>> Perhaps more likely for the world to end with a whimper than a
>> bang: people are passive. They prefer the inflight movie over a
>> terrorist "training" scenario with choice among dubious outcomes.
>> If the hijackers planned only to land the plane at an airport then
>> your so-called "heroes" would become actual terrorists there.
>> Really might be a -difference- between hijackers and terrorists.
>> Where are cellphone transcripts about a "knowlege" of attacks?
> Do you not even have a rudimentary acquaintance with the available
> facts and evidence in this case?
I suppose there are cellphone transcripts, however I am asking
for those portions of the transcripts which address "knowledge" of
attacks. As per a pattern of our exchanges so far, we are already
familiar with your tendency to conflate knowledge with belief and
of my intentions here to discern some separability between them.
>>>> I suspend judgment and pose questions. You do not.
>>> No, you suspend facts and evidence in favor of denial=3D85 I have
>>> no =3D93dogmatic insistencies=3D94=3D85 that=3D92s kooker
>>> territory. I mere=ly follow the evidence where it goes and have
>>> no qualms about where it leads.
>> So you were not following evidence from the plane's remains?
> WTF?
WTF your WTF? Was your "conclusion" of "no shootdown"
derived via examination of evidence from Flight 93's reassembly?
>>>>>> Was the plane completely reassembled
>>>>>> anywhere from its "intact" remains?
>>>>> Well, not completely since not all of it was recovered.
>>>>> But yes what was recovered was reassembled.
>>>> Where is the reassembly located? Can we view it? You
>>>> need to let evidence take you places and not try to force the
>>>> evidence to come to you.
>>> I believe at this point UAL has possession, perhaps the insurer.
>>> Take it up with them.
>> What you formerly termed "knowledge" is instead "belief" ?
> No, that=92s your lack of reading comprehension at work. You are
> conflating answers to two different questions and attacking your
> incorrect synthesis of them.
If you had examined the reassembly evidence then wouldn't
you -KNOW- where it is located and -WHO- has possession?
>> Will you not share that advice to examine the evidence and let
>> it take you places?
> I did and I am already at the finish line.
And when you examined the evidence of Flight 93's reassembly
what did you find?
>> Why are we arguing over whether to examine
>> that evidence? At this late juncture why would you not examine
>> all of the evidence, which you have not yet seen, with me?
> Because I=92m done; you=92re the one who needs to travel the road
> to get here. But you=92ll have to get out of your state of denial and
> develop a truly open mind, rather than just brag about having one
> while it=92s closed.
Yes. I will travel the road to Flight 93's reassembly site. Can
you provide an address which I could locate via the roadmap?
Since you've been to the reassembly site for an examination of the
evidence can you supply any links to photos, documents, location?
>> Interceptors were scrambled for Flight 93 but did not show
>> up on the radar?
> They didn=92t get close to Flight 93.
Why scramble interceptors if they haven't a chance to get close?
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------------------
DNA Affirms Identity of Imperial Russian Remains
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=4457
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Iarnrod
> >> Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> True, true. I mean, you would HAVE to be ignorant to believe there is
> >>> =3D93room for much latitude and discrepancy=3D94 whern the person who
> >>> MADE the bomb has told us what was in it. What you call =3D93room for
> >>> much latitude=3D94 is what the sane world calls =3D93making shit up.=3D9=4
> > "-" wrote:
> >> And so the testimony of a murderer is now "reliable witness" ?
> > You keep missing the part where his story is corroborated by the
> > physical, documentary and other evidence.
>
> If so, then you keep missing the point where you are introducing
> McVeigh as the evidentiary witness instead of those corroborations.
This is usenet, sweetheart, not a courtroom. If you know little about
the volumes of evidence in the case, it’s not my problem.
> >>> Partin simply forgot to keep following the event. He made stuff up.
> >> Whether or not AFNO is a relatively small trifling.
> > That shows you don=92t know what you=92re talking about. Taking
> > out the =93FO=94 from the =93AN=94 and substituting nitromethane
> > makes quite a bit o=f difference.
>
> That's the mythology.
No. It’s the science.
> The ordinary bomb doesn't suffice …
The Partin-presumed “ordinary bomb” never existed, lambie pie.
> so the
> bomb is conceived to be much larger and then the larger bomb is
> supposed to suffice.
Not how it happened. It wasn’t even the government that discovered the
nitrometane use, it was a free lance writer who got hold of defense
papers on the eve of the trial. The government bungled the thing.
> >> The question
> >> concerns whether that truck bomb explosion could generate so much
> >> damage to the Murrah Building; whether there were no other bombs.
> > And what you call =93trifling=94 is what accounts for it, sport.
> > If you understood this, you=92d realize how silly your answer is.
>
> If you'll once again glace at the Subject: line here you'll find
> that we are discussing the story of Flight 93. Partin was cited by
> Kidd as reporting a remark from Col. Donn de Grand-Pre who says
> that there was a shootdown with a pilot who performed shootdown.
> You sought to "interrupt the chain" by attacking Partin's credibility.
You are new to this internet thing then I take it. I didn’t’
“interrupt” any chain, I am part of it, and Partin’s lack of
credibility is not an “interruption” in it. Fact remains I never
mentioned Grand Prix.
> Not clear from your argument that Partin's credibility is impeached.
It’s crystal clear. You can’t just mouth those words and be taken
seriously. I ripped him a new asshole: His OKC analysis is based on
PHONY info about the bomb. And he knows it by now. That makes him
completely incredible.
> Yet the point cocnerning Flight 93 doesn't rely upon Partin; this is a
> report from Col. Donn de Grand-Pre about whom you have nothing
> to say. All you've accomplished is the parading of your "schtick."
> Corroboration from Col. Donn de Grand-Pre is our resolution here.
What Grand Prix has to say is not possible. Partin’s “vouching” for
him only completes the Parade of Morons.
> >> I am not disputing the conclusion, merely what seems to be your
> >> propensity to conflate what you "believe" with what you "know" ...
> > Sorry, but I don=92t do that. *You* do, but not I.
>
> We have documentary evidence that you conflate knowledge
> with belief.
Actually we don’t. the evidence is that you failed to follow the
discussion here and confused two questions for one.
> You claimed knowledge that there is a Flight 93 plane
> reassembly but have only belief concerning its whereabouts.
They are two different things and not mutually exclusive. There is
this aspect called “time” at work here. E.g. I know where the WTC
steel was taken for analysis in 2001-02, but cannot tell you where it
all is right now. Do try to follow.
> >> Establishing that there were no other explosions seems
> >> again to be proving a negative ... something you are skillful at?
> > Establishing that there were no other explosions is easy. It would be
> > proving that there were MORE that would be not easy. <chuckle>
>
> Though I don't claim to -know- that there were other explosions.
> There was merely a possibility that some evidence might indicate so.
The evidence is in, and it says not.
> By contrast you have asserted knowledgeably that there were no others,
> though to establish your knowledge you would need to prove a negative.
It’s not proving a negative. There were tens of thousands of
witnesses. We have hundreds of videos. There were no CD explosions.
> Yet another example where you have conflated knowledge with belief.
False, as I showed.
> Obviously you have in the past relied upon your bullying techniques…
I have no “bullying” techniques, sweetie.
> to "win" arguments with the result that you have arrived at incorrect
> conclusions.
I have arrived at no incorrect conclusliuons. If you “think” I have
feel free to point one out. Even one.
> Your methods here put everything else into suspicion.
Only to kooks who deny the obvious.
> Did you find any offer of "surrender"? You confabulated an assertion!
Not at all. You clearly surrendered by hand-waving off the request for
evidence. That’s what surrender is, ceasing the engagement.
> > Dismissal of Partin is very easy. He completely lacks credibility on
> > the OKC issue; he=92s been shown wrong for years but keeps
> > repeating his errors in public no less. Poor old galoot.
>
> He presents an array of independent points and you have been
> obsessing over a trivial detail.
The fact that Partin is completely wrong is not trivial to his
credibility.
> >>>> YouTube is transforming political argument because it supplies
> >>>> audio-visual evidence of claims to cites formerly found only in text.=
> >> > It also provides much lies and fabrication. It is wholly unreliable.
> >> > It=3D92s worse than Wikipedia.
> >> Point is to expose lies and fabrication if they are being alleged.
> > Yet so many more are engendered!
>
> An engendering of further lies is not the result of YouTube media.
Of course it is.
> It is a feature of human nature which occurs also in text, even more so.
And with YouTube and others, it is spread even more. You deny it, yet
then concede it. Why?
> Apparently the game of "lie detection" is not one very familiar to you.
Wrong. I’m actually very very good at it.
> >> More easily accomplished with YouTube than only with mere text.
> > So are lies.
>
> The question here concerns "lie detection" at the end of the day.
> Exposing those lies via YouTube is more efficient than by text.
*Spreading* those lies is more efficient by YouTube.
> Having several cameras recording an event provides incomparable
> opportunity over prospects of several reporters writing shorthand.
One way in which we know for certain that there were no CD explosions
in the WTC collapses, incidentally.
> >> You pretend to exempt Jews from citicism while excoriating
> >> Wikipedia, which is yet another example of jew-controlled media.
> > When did I =93pretend to exempt Jews=94 from anything? More
> > paranoia at work, I=92m afraid. I really don=92t keep track of the true
> > joooo-haters here except the one-trick wonders, so I was expressing
> > mild =93aha=94 surprise that you are one of them.
>
> When did I say I was a joo hater?
Right here:
> Jews are merely Satan's Spawn defeated by the Sword of Jesus. My sentiments are irrelevant.
Hardly. They are the color background for your bland irrational
arguments.
> >>>> Partin was asking questions about the other explosions.
> >>> There were no other explosions.
> >> Again, you allege "proof of a negative" when there is none?
> > No, I state there were no other explosions because there were none.
>
> So you have no proof that there were no other explosions.
Yes, of course. All the evidence.
> >>>> But I thought we were also discussing Col. Donn de Grand-Pre.
> >>> Why would you =3D93think=3D94 that? I=3D92ve never mentioned this
> >>> Donn de Grand-Pre person at all. You brought up Partin; him I know about.
> >> Partin was quoting Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, which is where
> >> you made your entrance into this thread from the stage trap-door.
> > Surrender accepted again. As you note, I never once mentioned Grand-
> > Pre. My expertise is in Partin and OKC, and commented on that.
>
> I'll remind you again of the Subject: line here, and where you are.
> One Flight 93 shootdown story stems from Col. Donn de Grand-Pre.
> You do not shoot down that shootdown story by attacking Partin.
The fact that there was no shootdown shoots that down. Pulling
Partin’s credibility is simply part of burying one aspect of the
kooker theory.
> >> Yet another witness for interview, to confirm Flight 93's shootdown.
> > Flight 93 was not shot down. That=92s irrefutably true.
>
> You advise following evidentiary trails yet you cannot say where
> that trail leads once asking for a location of Flight 93's reassembly.
It’s been done. You are nearly seven years behind the times.
> >> Or are you affiliated with the Hollywood fabrication, by any chance?
> > BWAHAHAAHAAAHAAAA!!!! Hollywood??? WTF are you talking about now!!
>
> Surely you are not unaware of the Hollywood movie version?
Yes, I am. I am not a big “Hollywood” watcher.
> > So I take it you really do believe that any part of a building that
> > doesn=92t collapse in an initial blast must be stable?
>
> No, it's not stable but it's not exactly unstable.
It was unstable.
> Middle-ground
> between the extremes might be an unfamiliar perspective for you.
Not at all, but I know the OKC case very well.
> >>>> Maybe you see something now, as do others who work in text.
> >>> No, I don=3D92t work in text. I post through Google. The problem
> >>> is entirely on your end.
> >> Others who post through Google don't produce character aliasing.
> > Neither do I. It is YOUR newsreader and service. No one else with
> > whom I exchange replies does this but you. It is you.
>
> My newsreader is configured to detect FUD produces like you.
It’s not very good then. As you might notice, you are the only
participant who generates these anomalies. It’s not me.
> >> I suppose it's your choice of font, character-set, or a Macintosh.
> > Nope. It=92s you.
>
> Wrong answer. It's really your choice of font, not system or terminal.
Nope. I am not choosing anything different. It really is on your end,
sweetcakes. You’re the only one this happens to. It’s you.
> > ...rejection of the facts and evidence can signal denial. Rejection
> > of facts and evidence in order to cling to physically impossible
> > fabrications is not =93open mind,=94 it=92s =93closed mind.=94
>
> Was it physically impossible to shoot down Flight 93?
Yes, of course it was given the circumstances of its crash. Maybe if
it had continued east toward DC, a fighter could have neared it. But
there was nothing in the vicinity that could accomplish that, and the
plane hit the ground intact.
> You seem to believe that radar could scrub the airspace …
WTF? We have the radar.
> and that the
> passengers-turned-terrorist composed a Hollywood screenplay so
> that filmgoers would obtain the historical record of their "heroism."
I doubt anyone on board was thinking that way at the time.
> Nobody rejects facts.
You gotta be kidding!?!? 9/11 conspiracy theorists get through every
day ONLY by rejecting facts.
> On the way to discovery of truth there can be many unexpected
> twists and turns. If you were more familiar with suspended judgment
> then you might gain better understanding of scientific method, which
> by definition is not generally the province of an ordinary investigator.
Been there, finished with that.
> One does not "lose" credibility by suspended judgment or deliberation.
No, they lose credibility by being incorrect and not changing.
> On the contrary, those who rush to conclusions risk loss of credibility.
Indeed, as did Partin who said he “knew” in the first few hours after
OKC, and as do 9/11 conspiracy folk who have not only rushed to
conclusions without evidence, but who must “reject facts” in order to
stay fixed on their incorrect preconceived conclusions.
> >> In order for something to become "established" it must be
> >> adopted as the suitable explanation by everyone qualified to pass
> >> judgment on the matter.
> > As is 9/11.
>
> Though in a society of democracy how many do you suppose
> are "qualified to pass judgment on the matter" ?
A shitload of them.
> Why did the 9/11
> Commission pursue directions for inquiry entirely at variance to the
> concerns and questions being expressed by newsgroup posters?
They didn’t. The investigation went where evidence took it, and that’s
not at variance with “usenet posters” concerns at all. The 9/11
commission BTW did not look at the collapses. NIST did.
> >> When highly qualified individuals are not all in agreement
> >> then it is premature to lay claim to established truth.
> > We=92re long past that time.
>
> Yes, by now it is quite obvious that highly qualified individuals
> are not all in agreement.
I don’t see that. It seems to me they ARE in agreement. There are a
few kooks who are espousing physically impossible and flawed
investigations of their own, but there is no need for unanimity. There
will never be unanimity because there are always biased sources out
there intractably glued to their disproved nonsense.
> >>> No, not impossible at all. The plane was observed by numerous
> >>> witnesses. It crashed into the ground; it was not struck by a missile.
> >> Those numerous witnesses were able to confirm from afar that
> >> Flight 93 was not disabled on account of having a missle up its ass?
> > Correct. There was no missile. No shoot down. No military fighter jet.
> > None of that. Correct. Can=92t have a shoot-down without those!
>
> Focus on those numerous eyewitnesses from afar. You claim
> that those numerous eyewitnesses on the scene instantly confirmed
> that there was no missile and no military fighter jet?
Yes, of course. Such a thing could not me missed. It would have been
an integral and overtly visible part of the event.
> How could
> those numerous eyewitnesses -determine- such convenient facts?
They are not “convenient;” they merely are.
> They saw a plane in trouble falling out of the sky.
Nope. See, again I was fooled into thinking you knew something about
this.
> Or was this again a similar sort of conflation of knowledge and
> belief for which you are becoming quite famous?
Only in your mind. I’ve not done that at all, while I’ve shown that
you have.
> You're saying that they weren't on a cellphone call to Hollywood
> so that screenwriters could obtain accurate accounts of the dialogue?
Why would you think such an obviously stupid thing?
> How do you prove that negative?
Records.
> Yet cellphones don't work very
> well at high altitude, do they?
Actually they do.
> >> Where are cellphone transcripts about a "knowlege" of attacks?
> > Do you not even have a rudimentary acquaintance with the available
> > facts and evidence in this case?
>
> I suppose there are cellphone transcripts, however I am asking
> for those portions of the transcripts which address "knowledge" of
> attacks.
Holy cow. Have you ever heard of Google?
> As per a pattern of our exchanges so far, we are already
> familiar with your tendency to conflate knowledge with belief and
> of my intentions here to discern some separability between them.
Actually that was you; I haven’t done that. But I am glad to have
introduced you to your new favorite overused word, “conflate!”
> >>>> I suspend judgment and pose questions. You do not.
> >>> No, you suspend facts and evidence in favor of denial=3D85 I have
> >>> no =3D93dogmatic insistencies=3D94=3D85 that=3D92s kooker
> >>> territory. I mere=ly follow the evidence where it goes and have
> >>> no qualms about where it leads.
> >> So you were not following evidence from the plane's remains?
> > WTF?
>
> WTF your WTF?
Explain your inance question, is what WTF meant.
> Was your "conclusion" of "no shootdown"
> derived via examination of evidence from Flight 93's reassembly?
No. From the fact that it was not shot down. That there was no
missile, no fighter, that numerous eyewitnesses watched the final
course of the plane as it flew over the PA countryside and had eyes on
it.
> If you had examined the reassembly evidence then wouldn't
> you -KNOW- where it is located and -WHO- has possession?
No. That makes no sense at all. Once the investigation was completed
the pieces were released to UAL and its insurer. Where they took them,
I don’t know. One does not need to know where they are TODAY to know
what was found during the investigation.
> >> Why are we arguing over whether to examine
> >> that evidence? At this late juncture why would you not examine
> >> all of the evidence, which you have not yet seen, with me?
> > Because I=92m done; you=92re the one who needs to travel the road
> > to get here. But you=92ll have to get out of your state of denial and
> > develop a truly open mind, rather than just brag about having one
> > while it=92s closed.
>
> Yes. I will travel the road to Flight 93's reassembly site. Can
> you provide an address which I could locate via the roadmap?
No. Do some work of your own for once.
> Since you've been to the reassembly site for an examination of the
> evidence can you supply any links to photos, documents, location?
Google is your friend.
> >> Interceptors were scrambled for Flight 93 but did not show
> >> up on the radar?
> > They didn=92t get close to Flight 93.
>
> Why scramble interceptors if they haven't a chance to get close?
It’s fitting that you close with the stupidest question yet.
ecoman
> - wrote:
> > > "-" wrote: (re: OKC truckbomb)
> > >> Clearly there is room for much lattitude and discrepancy of
> > >> opinion concerning the actual size of the truck bomb explosion,
> > >> compared with the size necessary to accomplish the demonstrated
> > >> effect.
>
<Ahh, another joooooooooooo-hating paranoid! >
And that little phrase speaks volumes.
Iarnrod
What does it say to you, Nigel?
ecoman
That you are a pathetic and in severe denial...that you are afraid to
be exposed and thus arrogantly try to hide your ignorance in a
plethora of banality and circumstance.
johnoneill
"george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message news:0db6721b-63ce-478c...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On May 5, 1:12 pm, BDK <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote:
>> In article <fvl9o3$63...@aioe.org>, johnone...@gmail.com says...
>
>> > Run, george, run.
>>
>> He's too busy laughing.
>
> At the thought that I'd run from the evidence of 911..
You are. That's as clear as day, georgieboy.
> Of course demental is worth a chuckle or three...
You can chuckel all you want, "debunker". The moment of truth approaches.
Will be fun watching you and your reactions then, george.
> What will his next comedic claim be I wonder ?
George is a liar.
And that's not a comedic claim, georgieboy.
Iarnrod
BWAHAHAAHAAAAA!!! You have GOT to be kidding!!
Come out of your shell, Nigel. The rest of the world is passing you
by!
<chuckle>
Vandar
> The moment of truth approaches.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/msg/86a5b74e59dd9e80
johnoneill
"Vandar" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ws0Uj.2615$Cn4...@news02.roc.ny...
> johnoneill wrote:
>
>> The moment of truth approaches.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/msg/86a5b74e59dd9e80
I know you're proud of your work, Vandar.
But, this time... the moment is really approaching. Rapidly.
Why?
Well, "debunker"... mainly because 9/11 was pulled off (by your government)
extremely sloppy. And it is extremely obvious.
Fuck it, Vandar. Your fuckmasters are even dumber than you are.
-
>>>> And so the testimony of a murderer is now "reliable witness" ?
>>> You keep missing the part where his story is corroborated by the
>>> physical, documentary and other evidence.
>> If so, then you keep missing the point where you are introducing
>> McVeigh as the evidentiary witness instead of those corroborations.
Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is usenet, sweetheart, not a courtroom. If you know little about
> the volumes of evidence in the case, it=92s not my problem.
Our discussion here concerns methodology, not conclusions.
We may agree on the conclusions yet disagree on methods deployed.
The means whereby you reach conclusions can speak volumes
about means whereby you may reach other conclusions. If your
methods are flawed then other conclusions you reach can be faulty.
>>>>> Partin simply forgot to keep following the event. He made stuff up.
>>>> Whether or not AFNO is a relatively small trifling.
>>> That shows you don=3D92t know what you=3D92re talking about. Taking
>>> out the =3D93FO=3D94 from the =3D93AN=3D94 and substituting nitromethane=
>>> makes quite a bit o=3Df difference.
>> That's the mythology. The ordinary bomb doesn't suffice so
>> the bomb is conceived to be much larger and then the larger
>> bomb is supposed to suffice.
> (1) No. It=92s the science.
> (2) The Partin-presumed =93ordinary bomb=94 never existed, lambie pie.
> (3) Not how it happened. It wasn=92t even the government that discovered
> the nitrometane use, it was a free lance writer who got hold of defense
> papers on the eve of the trial. The government bungled the thing.
(1)
Science is also a method, not prescription for certain conclusions.
Science requires peer review. Taking leave of peer review means
you are cutting across the grain of science, implying crackpotism.
You appear to be in denial of further possibility of peer review.
(2)
The Partin-presumed ordinary bomb was a preliminary hypothesis.
Later it came to be replaced by another subsidiary hypothesis. To
claim that something exists merely on account of being subsidiary
is faulty. Any evidence for nitromethane substitution is supplied by
corroborations which you have not cited, not by the McVeigh cite.
(3)
When people don't generally trust the government it makes sense
to use a "free lance writer" for introducing that 11th hour evidence.
If the government "bungled the thing" then there is no limit to how
much government bungling occurred. Yet the government is "of
the people" so the government bungling is actually your fault, too.
Which is why "free lance writers" have more credibility these days.
>> If you'll once again glace at the Subject: line here you'll find
>> that we are discussing the story of Flight 93. Partin was cited by
>> Kidd as reporting a remark from Col. Donn de Grand-Pre who says
>> that there was a shootdown with a pilot who performed shootdown.
>> You sought to "interrupt the chain" by attacking Partin's credibility.
> You are new to this internet thing then I take it. I didn=92t=92
> =93interrupt=94 any chain, I am part of it, and Partin=92s lack of
> credibility is not an =93interruption=94 in it. Fact remains I never
> mentioned Grand Prix.
Your approach to discredit the "story of Flight 93 shootdown" is
to discredit hearsay words of Col. Donn de Grand-Pre as reported
from Gen. Partin, because you wish to discredit Gen. Partin. That
argument of yours forms a -supposed- "chain" of discrediting.
>> Not clear from your argument that Partin's credibility is impeached.
> It=92s crystal clear. You can=92t just mouth those words and be taken
> seriously. I ripped him a new asshole: His OKC analysis is based on
> PHONY info about the bomb. And he knows it by now. That makes him
> completely incredible.
Partin speculated on certain results intrinsic to the assumption of
a certain type of "ordinary" bomb. We don't have Partin's exchange
when confronted with the alternative hypothesis of more magnificent
bomb. Not yet. To conduct a thorough investigation we would need
to revisit Partin in context to the evidence of the bigger bomb power.
If all that Partin does is discredited on account of his speculations,
you would discredit anyone who speculates, which is not conducive
to the rigorous pursuit of scientific methodology. Your logical fallacy
may be termed "post hoc ergo propter hoc" yet there is no necessary
causal relationship between one speculative venture and another.
>> Yet the point cocnerning Flight 93 doesn't rely upon Partin; this is a
>> report from Col. Donn de Grand-Pre about whom you have nothing
>> to say. All you've accomplished is the parading of your "schtick."
>> Corroboration from Col. Donn de Grand-Pre is our resolution here.
> What Grand Prix has to say is not possible. Partin=92s =93vouching=94
> for him only completes the Parade of Morons.
Thereby, to conduct -thorough- investigation, which seems not
to be your habit, we would need to revisit Col. Donn de Grand-Pre
and see today what he now has to say, in light of newer evidence.
Yet you have earlier stated that you have no remarks concerning
the credibility question of Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, though you
must surely by now have an unstated opinion if you now claim that
what he says must be impossible according to other contradictory
evidence which you continue to regard as iron-clad.
>>>> I am not disputing the conclusion, merely what seems to be your
>>>> propensity to conflate what you "believe" with what you "know" ...
>>> Sorry, but I don=3D92t do that. *You* do, but not I.
>> We have documentary evidence that you conflate knowledge
>> with belief. You claimed knowledge that there is a Flight 93 plane
>> reassembly but have only belief concerning its whereabouts.
> Actually we don=92t. the evidence is that you failed to follow
> the discussion here and confused two questions for one.
> They are two different things and not mutually exclusive. There
> is this aspect called =93time=94 at work here. E.g. I know where
> the WTC steel was taken for analysis in 2001-02, but cannot tell
> you where it all is right now. Do try to follow.
Fine. Where was Flight 93 plane reassembly conducted
and at what date/time was it conducted? Who conducted it?
Where is the report of findings from the Flight 93 reassembly?
Earlier I posted a FOIA reply letter from an effort to learn facts.
>>>> Establishing that there were no other explosions seems
>>>> again to be proving a negative ... something you are skillful at?
>>> Establishing that there were no other explosions is easy. It would be
>>> proving that there were MORE that would be not easy. <chuckle>
>> Though I don't claim to -know- that there were other explosions.
>> There was merely a possibility that some evidence might indicate so.
> The evidence is in, and it says not.
The evidence, from various sources, requires interpretation.
>> By contrast you have asserted knowledgeably that there were no others,
>> though to establish your knowledge you would need to prove a negative=
> It=92s not proving a negative. There were tens of thousands of
> witnesses. We have hundreds of videos. There were no CD explosions.
The possible existence of other bombs does not imply that these
needed to be CD explosions. This was not a controlled demolition.
>> Obviously you have in the past relied upon your bullying techniques
>> to "win" arguments with the result that you have arrived at incorrect
>> conclusions.
> I have no =93bullying=94 techniques, sweetie.
In general, "surrender" occurs only by means of compliance.
You claimed "surrender" outright without obtaining a signature
document or treaty indicating compliance and the specific terms.
On a battlefield you would risk life and limb of your troops when
lying to them about the claim to "surrender" without obtainining
proper "surrender" procedures. Your credibility is impeached.
> I have arrived at no incorrect conclusliuons. If you =93think=94 I
> have feel free to point one out. Even one.
The possibility of arriving at an incorrect conclusion is always
on the back burner for those of scientific caliber. As I mention
herein, however, if this was not previously clear, our discussion
concerns principally methods by which conclusions are reached.
We may agree today on specific conclusions but if we are not
agreeing on methodology then past or future conclusions, and
conclusions on other matters, might not be in agreement.
In particular, if an investigation is not thorough (which seems
to satisfy you) then the rush to conclusion appears premature.
May be the case, however, that being premature is your nature.
While those who gave contradictory testimony are not brought
into forum for reconciliation then investigation is not thorough.
>> Your methods here put everything else into suspicion.
> Only to kooks who deny the obvious.
Your _ad_hominem_ logical fallacy is a disreputable method.
You project by means of insulting labels when having no argument.
>> Did you find any offer of "surrender"? You confabulated an assertion!
> Not at all. You clearly surrendered by hand-waving off the request for
> evidence. That=92s what surrender is, ceasing the engagement.
I am not refusing to supply evidence. There was a thesis, of
which you are aware, that other explosions might have occurred.
The thesis had supporting evidence which, apparently, was not
considered quite so compelling as other evidence persuading you.
>>> Dismissal of Partin is very easy. He completely lacks credibility on
>>> the OKC issue; he=3D92s been shown wrong for years but keeps
>>> repeating his errors in public no less. Poor old galoot.
>> He presents an array of independent points and you have been
>> obsessing over a trivial detail.
> The fact that Partin is completely wrong is not trivial to his credibility.
He may be wrong about a speculation which does not impair
credibility at speculating, nor credibility about other valid points.
We all speculate but the key concept here concerns suspension
of judgment, rather than rush to conclusion, for actual credibility.
>> An engendering of further lies is not the result of YouTube media.
>> It is a feature of human nature which occurs also in text, even more so.
> And with YouTube and others, it is spread even more. You deny it,
> yet then concede it. Why?
Messages (and propaganda) -are- spread on account of the
media. However we are discussing the survival of a "lie" in the
context of media. The lifetime of a "lie" is shorter on YouTube
than in the context of text. Even today historians are still arguing
over textual intricacies of religious scriptures, i.e. what was said.
Suppose we had television cameras on site when the Buddha
gave lectures, or when Jesus conducted miracles and walked
about in the Holy Land. Those individuals might be seen for
what they really were rather than what they became by legend.
>> Apparently the game of "lie detection" is not one very familiar to you.
> Wrong. I=92m actually very very good at it.
Professionals conducting "lie detection" are not so arrogant as you.
>> The question here concerns "lie detection" at the end of the day.
>> Exposing those lies via YouTube is more efficient than by text.
> *Spreading* those lies is more efficient by YouTube.
Sub-topic here concerns discovery of lies, not spreading of them.
>> Having several cameras recording an event provides incomparable
>> opportunity over prospects of several reporters writing shorthand.
> One way in which we know for certain that there were no CD
> explosions in the WTC collapses, incidentally.
Where reasonable men may disagree there is reasonable
cause for a lattitude of interpretations. If the videos were not
available then there would be much less to discuss, and less
opportunity for the discovery of lie. Having less to discuss tends
to support fewer perspectives, less diversity, and less of the
_e_pluribus_unum_ concept by which a nation is made strong.
>> When did I say I was a joo hater?
> Right here:
>> Jews are merely Satan's Spawn defeated by the
>> Sword of Jesus. My sentiments are irrelevant.
Seems to be text taken from John 8:44. Care to elevate
this discussion onto a cross whereby you crucify yet another?
>>>>>> Partin was asking questions about the other explosions.
>>>>> There were no other explosions.
>>>> Again, you allege "proof of a negative" when there is none?
>>> No, I state there were no other explosions because there were none.
>> So you have no proof that there were no other explosions.
> Yes, of course. All the evidence.
You stated that you do not allege "proof of a negative."
>> I'll remind you again of the Subject: line here, and where you are.
>> One Flight 93 shootdown story stems from Col. Donn de Grand-Pre.
>> You do not shoot down that shootdown story by attacking Partin.
> The fact that there was no shootdown shoots that down. Pulling
> Partin=92s credibility is simply part of burying one aspect of the
> kooker theory.
Which you claim to do by delinking some imagined "chain
of credibility" extending back from Devvy <-- Partin <-- Grand-Pre.
Yet there is no "kooky" involved when we pursue a -thorough-
investigation, i.e. to revisit Col. Donn de Grand-Pre for another
interview. I advocate -exposing- all testimony to the light of day.
>> You advise following evidentiary trails yet you cannot say where
>> that trail leads once asking for a location of Flight 93's reassembly.
> It=92s been done. You are nearly seven years behind the times.
Fine. Where is the exhibit today that we may visit? While
the park service seeks to place a memorial on the impact site
what transpires concerning the memorial for our investigators?
The results of that Flight 93 reassembly have been classified:
Letter to Mr. Monaghan --
http://www.911blogger.com/node/14422
>> Was it physically impossible to shoot down Flight 93?
> Yes, of course it was given the circumstances of its crash. Maybe if
> it had continued east toward DC, a fighter could have neared it. But
> there was nothing in the vicinity that could accomplish that, and the
> plane hit the ground intact.
So the scrambled interceptors were just waiting for
Flight 93 to arrive into their own airspace? They assumed
that Flight 93 would stay on track for subsequent shootdown?
>> You seem to believe that radar could scrub the airspace and that the
>> passengers-turned-terrorist composed a Hollywood screenplay so
>> that filmgoers would obtain the historical record of their "heroism."
> WTF? We have the radar.
> I doubt anyone on board was thinking that way at the time.
Have to be thinking ALL the way if they propose to bring down
an airplane in which they fly only for the sake of avoiding collision
with the White House, Washington Monument or Capitol Buildings.
They propose to trade away an uncertain death for certain death?
>> Nobody rejects facts.
> You gotta be kidding!?!? 9/11 conspiracy theorists get through
> every day ONLY by rejecting facts.
Let's review: how are facts established? By a jury, by rules of
evidence, by due process, procedural rules, and by rules of appeal.
>> On the way to discovery of truth there can be many unexpected
>> twists and turns. If you were more familiar with suspended judgment
>> then you might gain better understanding of scientific method, which
>> by definition is not generally the province of an ordinary investigator.
> Been there, finished with that.
Not scientific method. Science is an unfinished work in progress.
>> One does not "lose" credibility by suspended judgment or deliberation.
> No, they lose credibility by being incorrect and not changing.
What does "not changing" have to do with anything?
>> On the contrary, those who rush to conclusions risk loss of credibility.
> Indeed, as did Partin who said he =93knew=94 in the first few hours
> after OKC, and as do 9/11 conspiracy folk who have not only rushed
> to conclusions without evidence, but who must =93reject facts=94 in
> order to stay fixed on their incorrect preconceived conclusions.
Gen. Partin did what military generals are supposed to do:
they call attention to certain highlights for directing the immediate
investigation. After that it's up to criminal investigation division and
the judge-advocate general to continue with military prosecution.
Ever watch a boat plow through the water? Water being cut by
the bow is not quite the same as water left in its wake.
>>>> In order for something to become "established" it must be
>>>> adopted as the suitable explanation by everyone qualified
>>>> to pass judgment on the matter.
>>> As is 9/11.
>> Though in a society of democracy how many do you suppose
>> are "qualified to pass judgment on the matter" ?
> A shitload of them.
Too many, for your liking, I would surmise ... Much easier
for your "job" simply to have "Il Duce" or "Fuhrer" in charge?
>> Why did the 9/11
>> Commission pursue directions for inquiry entirely at variance to the
>> concerns and questions being expressed by newsgroup posters?
> They didn=92t. The investigation went where evidence took it, and
> that=92s not at variance with =93usenet posters=94 concerns at all.
> The 9/11 commission BTW did not look at the collapses. NIST did.
So the 9/11 Commission was not thorough, and did not follow
up on ramifications and implications to certain story discrepancies
concerning the suspicious collapses of certain buildings at WTC.
>>>> When highly qualified individuals are not all in agreement
>>>> then it is premature to lay claim to established truth.
>>> We=3D92re long past that time.
>> Yes, by now it is quite obvious that highly qualified individuals
>> are not all in agreement.
> I don=92t see that. It seems to me they ARE in agreement. There
> are a few kooks who are espousing physically impossible and
> flawed investigations of their own, but there is no need for unanimity.
> There will never be unanimity because there are always biased
> sources out there intractably glued to their disproved nonsense.
We may discountenance such kooks, of course. But what of
the highly qualified individuals who are not intractably glued to
disproved nonsense? By "disproved" I mean, of course, certain
"disproofs" that convince all of those qualified individuals in play.
>> Focus on those numerous eyewitnesses from afar. You claim
>> that those numerous eyewitnesses on the scene instantly confirmed
>> that there was no missile and no military fighter jet?
> Yes, of course. Such a thing could not me missed. It would have
> been an integral and overtly visible part of the event.
Why would they be on the lookout for a missile and military fighter
jet when all they see in the sky is a disabled or out-of-control plane?
>> How could those numerous
>> eyewitnesses -determine- such convenient facts?
> They are not =93convenient;=94 they merely are.
I mean to say, "facts so easily determined", i.e. more proofs
of a negative that there is no missle nor any fighter jet in sight.
>> They saw a plane in trouble falling out of the sky.
> Nope. See, again I was fooled into thinking you knew something
> about this.
Excuse me. I meant to say that they saw a plane making an
unscheduled pitstop at an unconstructed runway in the middle of a
grassy field at an angle between 35 and 90 degrees to the ground.
Expert witnesses know that's how planes not in trouble always fly.
>> You're saying that they weren't on a cellphone call to Hollywood
>> so that screenwriters could obtain accurate accounts of the dialogue?
> Why would you think such an obviously stupid thing?
Because they had foresight to willingly sacrifice themselves
to save the White House, Washington Monument, Mall, and
Capitol Buildings? With such foresight, and their most excellent
cellphone signals, they were thinking with crystal clarity about
the next Hollywood blockbuster feature in which their remains
would play a starring role.
>> Yet cellphones don't work very well at high altitude, do they?
> Actually they do.
Funny. In 2001 cellphones didn't seem to work very well at all.
Remember those "can you hear me now" Verizon commercials?
Airspace occurs over rather large uninhabited land tracts. Not
a really good idea to use cellphones when taking off or landing.
>>>> Where are cellphone transcripts about a "knowlege" of attacks?
>>> Do you not even have a rudimentary acquaintance with the available
>>> facts and evidence in this case?
>> I suppose there are cellphone transcripts, however I am asking
>> for those portions of the transcripts which address "knowledge" of
>> attacks.
> Holy cow. Have you ever heard of Google?
Ever heard of suppression on "google" and unreliability of internet?
>> As per a pattern of our exchanges so far, we are already
>> familiar with your tendency to conflate knowledge with belief and
>> of my intentions here to discern some separability between them.
> Actually that was you; I haven=92t done that. But I am glad to have
> introduced you to your new favorite overused word, =93conflate!=94
Then here's a new one for the space between your ears: "inflate"
>>>>>> I suspend judgment and pose questions. You do not.
>>>>> No, you suspend facts and evidence in favor of denial=3D3D85
>>>>> I have no =3D3D93dogmatic insistencies=3D3D94=3D3D85
>>>>> that=3D3D92s kooker territory. I mere=3Dly follow the evidence
>>>>> where it goes and have no qualms about where it leads.
>>>> So you were not following evidence from the plane's remains?
>>> WTF?
>> WTF your WTF?
> Explain your inance question, is what WTF meant.
According to Mr. Monaghan's FOIA request the FBI has
not released the documentary evidence concerning remains of
any recovered reassemblies of any flights in the 9/11 disasters.
My question pertains to your own conclusion(s) drawn without
following that specific evidence from a Flight 93 reassembly.
>> Was your "conclusion" of "no shootdown"
>> derived via examination of evidence from Flight 93's reassembly?
> No. From the fact that it was not shot down. That there was no
> missile, no fighter, that numerous eyewitnesses watched the final
> course of the plane as it flew over the PA countryside and had eyes
> on it.
Of course "numerous eyewtnesses" were on the lookout
for missiles and scrambled interceptor jets because that is their
standard protocol whenever they gather with large bags of popcorn
to watch yet another airplane nosedive into the cow pastures.
>> If you had examined the reassembly evidence then wouldn't
>> you -KNOW- where it is located and -WHO- has possession?
> No. That makes no sense at all. Once the investigation was completed
> the pieces were released to UAL and its insurer. Where they took them,
> I don=92t know. One does not need to know where they are TODAY
> to know what was found during the investigation.
Though if one knows where they are TODAY then one might
conduct another (informal) investigation. Of course UAL could just
put on memorial exhibits, or merely cannibalize the metal scrap into
another refrigerator or air-conditioner, which are in short supply.
>>>> Why are we arguing over whether to examine
>>>> that evidence? At this late juncture why would you not examine
>>>> all of the evidence, which you have not yet seen, with me?
>>> Because I=3D92m done; you=3D92re the one who needs to travel
>>> the road to get here. But you=3D92ll have to get out of your state
>>> of denial and develop a truly open mind, rather than just brag
>>> about having one while it=3D92s closed.
>> Yes. I will travel the road to Flight 93's reassembly site. Can
>> you provide an address which I could locate via the roadmap?
> No. Do some work of your own for once.
I'm doing some work right now. I asked somebody who claimed
to be knowledgeable but instead the guy was full of only flim-flam.
I reviewed Mr. Monaghan's FOIA request again but those FBI words
had not changed. I suppose that lack of change impairs credibility.
>> Since you've been to the reassembly site for an examination of the
>> evidence can you supply any links to photos, documents, location?
> Google is your friend.
Nah. Google mungs the URLs, operated by Jews, and doesn't
respond to general telephone calls or email requests. Go figure.
>>>> Interceptors were scrambled for Flight 93 but did not show
>>>> up on the radar?
>>> They didn=3D92t get close to Flight 93.
>> Why scramble interceptors if they haven't a chance to get close?
> It=92s fitting that you close with the stupidest question yet.
If Flight 93's passengers were getting cellphone reports then
why didn't they just sit tight and wait for jet interceptors to arrive?
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Walking Dead: Lives Without Meaning
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=4434
-----------------------------------------------------------------
george
> "george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in messagenews:0db6721b-63ce-478c...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > At the thought that I'd run from the evidence of 911..
>
> You are. That's as clear as day, georgieboy.
So. Why am I still here laughing at your kookish claims?
>
> > Of course demental is worth a chuckle or three...
>
> You can chuckel all you want, "debunker". The moment of truth approaches.
>
> Will be fun watching you and your reactions then, george.
In 6 years no-one has come up with a better explanation as to the
events of 911..
When do you expect this 'moment of truth" ?
You -do- realise that you will be making the same empty claims in
another six years and making yourself the butt of the joke ?
Iarnrod
> The Partin-presumed ordinary bomb was a preliminary hypothesis.
And it was incorrect. Known now to be incorrect. Yet he still uses it.
Hmmmm. And he came to that conclusion within “hours” of the event.
And tell me, who is it you “think” is jumping to conclusions and not
having an open mind?
> Later it came to be replaced by another subsidiary hypothesis. To
> claim that something exists merely on account of being subsidiary
> is faulty.
Well, your premise is wrong right there, so your conclusion is wrong,
> Any evidence for nitromethane substitution is supplied by
> corroborations which you have not cited, not by the McVeigh cite.
The three 55-gallon drum purchase of nitromethane by McVeigh is
completely documented and corroborated. The storage shed also yielded
evidence of it.
Puh-lease don’t push OKC on me, you will not win.
> Your approach to discredit the "story of Flight 93 shootdown" is
> to discredit hearsay words of Col. Donn de Grand-Pre as reported
> from Gen. Partin, because you wish to discredit Gen. Partin. That
> argument of yours forms a -supposed- "chain" of discrediting.
That’s completely wrong. I comment on Partin’s complete lack of
credibility. That’s not what discredits the “story of Flight 93
shootdown;” the plain fact that Flight 93 was not shot down is what
discredits that.
> >> Not clear from your argument that Partin's credibility is impeached.
>
> > It=92s crystal clear. You can=92t just mouth those words and be taken
> > seriously. I ripped him a new asshole: His OKC analysis is based on
> > PHONY info about the bomb. And he knows it by now. That makes him
> > completely incredible.
>
>
> Partin speculated on certain results intrinsic to the assumption of
> a certain type of "ordinary" bomb. We don't have Partin's exchange
> when confronted with the alternative hypothesis of more magnificent
> bomb. Not yet.
He’s had more than a decade to get himself up to speed, honey lambs.
> To conduct a thorough investigation we would need
> to revisit Partin in context to the evidence of the bigger bomb power.
> If all that Partin does is discredited on account of his speculations,
> you would discredit anyone who speculates,
Not at all. Not when they’re not wrong. We know Partin is wrong.
> Thereby, to conduct -thorough- investigation, which seems not
> to be your habit,…
On the contrary, it appears to be my habit and not his.
> >> Though I don't claim to -know- that there were other explosions.
> >> There was merely a possibility that some evidence might indicate so.
>
> > The evidence is in, and it says not.
>
>
> The evidence, from various sources, requires interpretation.
The interpretation is in, and it also says not.
> In general, "surrender" occurs only by means of compliance.
That’s not true at all. Many surrender without complying. They
forfeit. That’s what you did on that point.
> You claimed "surrender" outright without obtaining a signature
> document or treaty indicating compliance and the specific terms.
So? You surrendered. You even wrote it.
> On a battlefield you would risk life and limb of your troops when
> lying to them about the claim to "surrender" without obtainining
> proper "surrender" procedures. Your credibility is impeached.
More like yours I’d say. It’s indisputable that you gave up the point.
That’s surrender.
> In particular, if an investigation is not thorough (which seems
> to satisfy you) then the rush to conclusion appears premature.
These investigations were extremely thorough, there was no rush to
conclusion. Heck, the NIST report on WTC7 isn’t even issued YET. Some
rush! Some prematurity! You see, I do like thorough investigations but
when they’re done, they’re done! No need to contoinue whining year in
and year out about how NIST never investigated the “no planes/
hologram” theory. You simply have to accept that there are always
morons walking the earth who will not accept their noses in front of
their faces.
> May be the case, however, that being premature is your nature.
> While those who gave contradictory testimony are not brought
> into forum for reconciliation then investigation is not thorough.
They were brought in, chum.
> >> Your methods here put everything else into suspicion.
>
> > Only to kooks who deny the obvious.
>
>
> Your _ad_hominem_ logical fallacy is a disreputable method.
Learn the difference between an ad hominem fallacy and a gratuitous
insult. The insult is not part of the argumentation. The argument was
already disposed of.
> You project by means of insulting labels when having no argument.
I HAD the argument. You didn’t even present a counter, you only
impugned it.
> I am not refusing to supply evidence.
But that’s exactly what you did.
> > The fact that Partin is completely wrong is not trivial to his credibility.
>
>
> He may be wrong about a speculation which does not impair
> credibility at speculating, nor credibility about other valid points.
He is wrong. He has no credibility. That’s what “being wrong” does.
> >> Apparently the game of "lie detection" is not one very familiar to you.
>
> > Wrong. I=92m actually very very good at it.
>
>
> Professionals conducting "lie detection" are not so arrogant as you.
Maybe they’re not as good as I am.
> >> Was it physically impossible to shoot down Flight 93?
>
> > Yes, of course it was given the circumstances of its crash. Maybe if
> > it had continued east toward DC, a fighter could have neared it. But
> > there was nothing in the vicinity that could accomplish that, and the
> > plane hit the ground intact.
>
>
> So the scrambled interceptors were just waiting for
> Flight 93 to arrive into their own airspace?
Again I introduce to you the concept of “time.” The event was over
before any interceptors could get to where Flight 93 was.
> Have to be thinking ALL the way if they propose to bring down
> an airplane in which they fly only for the sake of avoiding collision
> with the White House, Washington Monument or Capitol Buildings.
> They propose to trade away an uncertain death for certain death?
Quite the opposite. They faced certain death WITHOUT acting, uncertain
of they could retake the plane. Remember, sweetie, it’s the hijackers
who crashed it, not the passengers.
> >> Nobody rejects facts.
>
> > You gotta be kidding!?!? 9/11 conspiracy theorists get through
> > every day ONLY by rejecting facts.
>
>
> Let's review: how are facts established? By a jury, by rules of
> evidence, by due process, procedural rules, and by rules of appeal.
No, that’s how rule of law is established. I can establish facts
without any of that.
> Not scientific method. Science is an unfinished work in progress.
We’re not talking “science” but “what happened on 9/11?” That’s pretty
much done.
> >> One does not "lose" credibility by suspended judgment or deliberation.
>
> > No, they lose credibility by being incorrect and not changing.
>
>
> What does "not changing" have to do with anything?
It has to do with continuing to assert disproven claims.
> >>>> In order for something to become "established" it must be
> >>>> adopted as the suitable explanation by everyone qualified
> >>>> to pass judgment on the matter.
>
> >>> As is 9/11.
>
> >> Though in a society of democracy how many do you suppose
> >> are "qualified to pass judgment on the matter" ?
>
> > A shitload of them.
>
>
> Too many, for your liking, I would surmise ...
Then, as usual, you would be way wrong.
> Much easier
> for your "job" simply to have "Il Duce" or "Fuhrer" in charge?
BWAHAHAHHAAAAA!!! You are really clueless.
The fact that the community of qualified persons has overwhelmingly
settled this issue came through the very investigative and
deliberative process you support. Now it’s time to support the
conclusions. No dictator need apply.
> >> Why did the 9/11
> >> Commission pursue directions for inquiry entirely at variance to the
> >> concerns and questions being expressed by newsgroup posters?
>
> > They didn=92t. The investigation went where evidence took it, and
> > that=92s not at variance with =93usenet posters=94 concerns at all.
> > The 9/11 commission BTW did not look at the collapses. NIST did.
>
>
> So the 9/11 Commission was not thorough, and did not follow
> up on ramifications and implications to certain story discrepancies
> concerning the suspicious collapses of certain buildings at WTC.
On the contrary, it was very thorough. Good lord, you’re not even
informed on the commission’s task? The commission was not the body
looking into the reasons for the collapses. Nor would you WANT them
to, yet you complain they weren’t “thorough” by not doing so?
> We may discountenance such kooks, of course.
Well, that’s what we’re doin’ here, bub!
> >> Focus on those numerous eyewitnesses from afar. You claim
> >> that those numerous eyewitnesses on the scene instantly confirmed
> >> that there was no missile and no military fighter jet?
>
> > Yes, of course. Such a thing could not me missed. It would have
> > been an integral and overtly visible part of the event.
>
>
> Why would they be on the lookout for a missile and military fighter
> jet when all they see in the sky is a disabled or out-of-control plane?
Learn to read for comprehension.
> >> They saw a plane in trouble falling out of the sky.
>
> > Nope. See, again I was fooled into thinking you knew something
> > about this.
>
>
> Excuse me. I meant to say that they saw a plane making an
> unscheduled pitstop at an unconstructed runway in the middle of a
> grassy field at an angle between 35 and 90 degrees to the ground.
> Expert witnesses know that's how planes not in trouble always fly.
Excuse me, you still don’t get it.
Flight 93 was seen by people on the ground for a great distance before
it crashed, not only in its last five seconds. There was no fighter,
no missile. It was not shot down. It was flying erratically and then
nosed into the ground.
> >> You're saying that they weren't on a cellphone call to Hollywood
> >> so that screenwriters could obtain accurate accounts of the dialogue?
>
> > Why would you think such an obviously stupid thing?
>
>
> Because they had foresight to willingly sacrifice themselves
> to save the White House, Washington Monument, Mall, and
> Capitol Buildings?
I was right, you don’t know anything.
That is a mischaracterization of the situation. It was, in fact, the
opposite. They were trying to save themselves. They did not crash the
plane. They were trying to retake it.
> With such foresight, and their most excellent
> cellphone signals, they were thinking with crystal clarity about
> the next Hollywood blockbuster feature in which their remains
> would play a starring role.
Thank you for displaying your complete lack of common sense.
> >> Yet cellphones don't work very well at high altitude, do they?
>
> > Actually they do.
>
>
> Funny. In 2001 cellphones didn't seem to work very well at all.
You’re wrong.
> >> I suppose there are cellphone transcripts, however I am asking
> >> for those portions of the transcripts which address "knowledge" of
> >> attacks.
>
> > Holy cow. Have you ever heard of Google?
>
>
> Ever heard of suppression on "google" and unreliability of internet?
Irrelevant to the fact that you can easily obtain the info you want
through a Google search.
> >> Was your "conclusion" of "no shootdown"
> >> derived via examination of evidence from Flight 93's reassembly?
>
> > No. From the fact that it was not shot down. That there was no
> > missile, no fighter, that numerous eyewitnesses watched the final
> > course of the plane as it flew over the PA countryside and had eyes
> > on it.
>
>
> Of course "numerous eyewtnesses" were on the lookout
> for missiles and scrambled interceptor jets because that is their
> standard protocol whenever they gather with large bags of popcorn
> to watch yet another airplane nosedive into the cow pastures.
To see a jet fighter shooting down a passenger airplane does not
require any preparation on the observer’s part. They simply see what
is there.
> >>>> Why are we arguing over whether to examine
> >>>> that evidence? At this late juncture why would you not examine
> >>>> all of the evidence, which you have not yet seen, with me?
>
> >>> Because I=3D92m done; you=3D92re the one who needs to travel
> >>> the road to get here. But you=3D92ll have to get out of your state
> >>> of denial and develop a truly open mind, rather than just brag
> >>> about having one while it=3D92s closed.
>
> >> Yes. I will travel the road to Flight 93's reassembly site. Can
> >> you provide an address which I could locate via the roadmap?
>
> > No. Do some work of your own for once.
>
>
> I'm doing some work right now. I asked somebody who claimed
> to be knowledgeable but instead the guy was full of only flim-flam.
Looking in the mirror?
> >> Since you've been to the reassembly site for an examination of the
> >> evidence can you supply any links to photos, documents, location?
>
> > Google is your friend.
>
>
> Nah. Google mungs the URLs, operated by Jews, and doesn't
> respond to general telephone calls or email requests. Go figure.
More joooo-hating paranoia on display.
> >>>> Interceptors were scrambled for Flight 93 but did not show
> >>>> up on the radar?
>
> >>> They didn=3D92t get close to Flight 93.
>
> >> Why scramble interceptors if they haven't a chance to get close?
>
> > It=92s fitting that you close with the stupidest question yet.
>
>
> If Flight 93's passengers were getting cellphone …
Mostly GTE Airphone calls…
> …reports then
> why didn't they just sit tight and wait for jet interceptors to arrive?
Because they didn’t.
What do you “think” a jet interceptor does, sweetcakes?
How does that change the fact that if the passengers don’t retake the
plane they’re all dead?
Cardinal Chunder
Demental doesn't make claims. He screeches conspiracy but never says
exactly what he thinks happened instead, let alone provide any
supporting evidence.
-
> "-" wrote:
>> The Partin-presumed ordinary bomb was a preliminary hypothesis.
larnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And it was incorrect. Known now to be incorrect. Yet he still uses it.
> Hmmmm. And he came to that conclusion within =93hours=94 of the event.
Since you say "he still uses it" do you have the date and/or
reference of him when he last used it? Is there any record of an
evidentiary confrontation? Why has nobody apprised him recently?
> And tell me, who is it you =93think=94 is jumping to conclusions and
> not having an open mind?
If he regards that conclusion as the only possible one it signals
a closed mind. Though the same could be said for anyone who
thinks of their own conclusion(s) as the only possible ones. Crucial
to this determination is whether he was given an opportunity to review
alternative conclusions and what he has to say by way of feedback.
Lacking such conferencing, it is doubtful whether anybody involved
can lay claim to an open mind.
>> Later it came to be replaced by another subsidiary hypothesis. To
>> claim that something exists merely on account of being subsidiary
>> is faulty.
> Well, your premise is wrong right there, so your conclusion is wrong,
You're a slow learner, apparently. I informed you previously
that I'm not here to debate conclusions. The focus is principally
upon methodologies. Quite possibly you are misidentifying what
is my premise. If "A" is subsidiary to "B" then B is not necessarily
correct because both might be superceeded by "C" or "D" etc .
>> Any evidence for nitromethane substitution is supplied by
>> corroborations which you have not cited, not by the McVeigh cite.
> The three 55-gallon drum purchase of nitromethane by McVeigh is
> completely documented and corroborated. The storage shed also
> yielded evidence of it.
Yes, this is what I recall. Now your method of presentation
has been refined to discuss "the purchase" (receipts in evidence)
& "chemical testing of storage shed." These would be acceptable
methods for corroboration of hypothesis, not McVeigh's testimony.
Perhaps with regards to the Flight 93 investigation we may improve
your standards for documentation and evidentiary substantiation.
>> Your approach to discredit the "story of Flight 93 shootdown" is
>> to discredit hearsay words of Col. Donn de Grand-Pre as reported
>> from Gen. Partin, because you wish to discredit Gen. Partin. That
>> argument of yours forms a -supposed- "chain" of discrediting.
> That=92s completely wrong. I comment on Partin=92s complete lack
> of credibility. That=92s not what discredits the =93story of Flight 93
> shootdown;=94 the plain fact that Flight 93 was not shot down is what
> discredits that.
Though he might be lacking in credibility concerning some
of the points at issue, he would be completely lacking only if he
had nobody to believe him. Yet if nobody believed him he would
certain adjust his manner of presentation and refine hypotheses.
So there is a distinction, though its subtlety is no doubt lost on you,
between lacking in credibility and completely lacking in credibility.
Again, this is yet another example of methdological refinement
crucial toward assisting your efforts to achieve acceptable means
for presentation of fact.
For the "plan fact" of Flight 93's "no shootdown" status you
perhaps refer to a reassembly though without any documentation
for it, no idea of who conducted analysis of the reassembly, and
no idea where it was done nor where reassembly is located now.
In other words, what you might term "plain fact" is hardly plain at all.
>> Partin speculated on certain results intrinsic to the assumption of
>> a certain type of "ordinary" bomb. We don't have Partin's exchange
>> when confronted with the alternative hypothesis of more magnificent
>> bomb. Not yet.
> He=92s had more than a decade to get himself up to speed, honey lambs.
And, with all of the OKC researchers, there is more than a decade
of opportunities for Partin to be confronted with audio-visual evidence
of that confrontation. So nobody has aggressively taken him to task?
How could you expect me to speak for or against him on his behalf?
>> To conduct a thorough investigation we would need
>> to revisit Partin in context to the evidence of the bigger bomb power.
>> If all that Partin does is discredited on account of his speculations,
>> you would discredit anyone who speculates,
> Not at all. Not when they=92re not wrong. We know Partin is wrong.
He might be wrong about the bomb composition, but it is anyone's
guess what the actual explosive power of the bomb amounted to.
>> Thereby, to conduct -thorough- investigation, which seems not
>> to be your habit,
> On the contrary, it appears to be my habit and not his.
Yet you have not confronted Partin with your version, so we do
do claim that -YOUR- investigation has been thoroughly thorough.
>>>> Though I don't claim to -know- that there were other explosions.
>>>> There was merely a possibility that some evidence might indicate so.
>>> The evidence is in, and it says not.
>> The evidence, from various sources, requires interpretation.
> The interpretation is in, and it also says not.
Interpretation of why McVeigh drove away without a license
plate, or with expired tabs, or aroused attentions of the police?
>> In general, "surrender" occurs only by means of compliance.
> That=92s not true at all. Many surrender without complying.
> They forfeit. That=92s what you did on that point.
Are you saying there was no other report from a police
officer nor any independent seismological data? Proving a
negative once again? At the time I recall reading quite a bit
about OKC, though we now live in a kind of "1984 medium"
where one is not quite so certain if electronic records remain
trustworthy. There was the hypothesis of multiple explosions.
It was investigated on account of some preliminary findings.
Perhaps there was a ruling on account of it, though the ruling
occurs when there is some need to make that sort of ruling.
It won't be difficult to locate somebody else who also recalls
the multiple explosion hypothesis.
>> You claimed "surrender" outright without obtaining a signature
>> document or treaty indicating compliance and the specific terms.
> So? You surrendered. You even wrote it.
Wrote what? Do you now parade your standards for research?
If so, which you got wrong when something was in front of your
face, what chance do you have with independent objective research?
>> On a battlefield you would risk life and limb of your troops when
>> lying to them about the claim to "surrender" without obtainining
>> proper "surrender" procedures. Your credibility is impeached.
> More like yours I=92d say. It=92s indisputable that you gave up
> the point. That=92s surrender.
The point doesn't concern what a ruling states. It concerns
the history of what led up to a ruling. There was for a time being
that hypothesis of multiple explosions at OKC, and investigations.
>> In particular, if an investigation is not thorough (which seems
>> to satisfy you) then the rush to conclusion appears premature.
> These investigations were extremely thorough, there was no rush
> to conclusion. Heck, the NIST report on WTC7 isn=92t even issued
> YET. Some rush! Some prematurity! You see, I do like thorough
> investigations but when they=92re done, they=92re done! No need
> to contoinue whining year in and year out about how NIST never
> investigated the =93no planes/ hologram=94 theory. You simply
> have to accept that there are always morons walking the earth
> who will not accept their noses in front of their faces.
Nobody here is whining about the "no planes" theory. The
Devvy article which forms the inception for this thread attempted
to refute the "no planes" theory. Moreover she introduced the
shootdown theory in addition to refuting the "no planes" theory.
You might want to ask yourself why the NIST is taking its time on
the WTC7 investigation. Evidently there is a problem wrapping
up those loose ends.
>> May be the case, however, that being premature is your nature.
>> While those who gave contradictory testimony are not brought
>> into forum for reconciliation then investigation is not thorough.
> They were brought in, chum.
So you have yourself spoken with General Partin and you
have a transcript of your dialogue with him, his responses, and
your responses to his responses, and so forth ? Remember
that you need to follow the evidence, and where IT leads you.
>> Your _ad_hominem_ logical fallacy is a disreputable method.
> Learn the difference between an ad hominem fallacy and a
> gratuitous insult. The insult is not part of the argumentation.
> The argument was already disposed of.
If you're typing things not part of the argumentation then you
are casual about wasting your own time and the time of others.
>> You project by means of insulting labels when having no argument.
> I HAD the argument. You didn=92t even present a counter, you
> only impugned it.
If you "HAD the argument" then you proceeded to RUIN your
own presentation by confusing your argument with ad hominem
gratuitous insults. If you decide to give somebody a five-dollar
bill then don't use it for toilet paper before you give it away.
>> I am not refusing to supply evidence.
> But that=92s exactly what you did.
I'll be happy to supply the evidence when it is found --
Results 1 - 100 of about 635 for multiple explosions "okc bombing".
(0.40 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=multiple+explosions&as_epq=okc+bombing&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images
>>> The fact that Partin is completely wrong is not trivial to his credibility.
>> He may be wrong about a speculation which does not impair
>> credibility at speculating, nor credibility about other valid points.
> He is wrong. He has no credibility. That=92s what =93being wrong=94 does.
Being wrong on a particular point does not suffice to reduce
somebody's credibility to zero. Your methods for investigation are
not thoroughly thorough.
>>>> Apparently the game of "lie detection" is not one very familiar to you.
>>> Wrong. I=3D92m actually very very good at it.
>> Professionals conducting "lie detection" are not so arrogant as you.
> Maybe they=92re not as good as I am.
Be careful then, or else you may be implicated in racketeering.
How are you able to determine what is a lie, unless you were there?
>> So the scrambled interceptors were just waiting for
>> Flight 93 to arrive into their own airspace?
> Again I introduce to you the concept of =93time.=94 The event was
> over before any interceptors could get to where Flight 93 was.
The passengers could have been informed that interceptors
would be on standby for an escort -OR- shootdown. Yet those
passengers who presumably stormed the Flight 93 took the lives
of others into their own hands, caused a plane to crash according
to your story account, and denied any opportunity for interceptor
escort to a safe landing. Yet you insist on calling those passenger
terrorists as "heroes" ? You seem to suggest it was a foregone
conclusion that no escorting by an interceptor was possible,
which implies that you could read the minds of the hijackers
even before the attack was to be consummated. So you might
have an unexplainable "insider knowledge" to be investigated.
>> Have to be thinking ALL the way if they propose to bring down
>> an airplane in which they fly only for the sake of avoiding collision
>> with the White House, Washington Monument or Capitol Buildings.
>> They propose to trade away an uncertain death for certain death?
> Quite the opposite. They faced certain death WITHOUT acting,
> uncertain of they could retake the plane. Remember, sweetie,
> it=92s the hijackers who crashed it, not the passengers.
Why would the hijackers crash an airplane in the middle of
a cow pasture instead of at some target of symbolic significance?
What was a significance of cellphone conversations with Flight 93
passengers if none of the cellphone conversations led to the
Hollywood hypothesis that passengers turned counter-terrorists
stormed the Flight 93 cockpit, battled with hijackers and crashed
the plane to save our Nation's Proud Historical Image? On other
airplanes the hijackers are credited with aerobatic miracles yet
you would claim that the Flight 93 pilots knew only how to crash
in a cow pasture, not how to take off and fly like their supposed
comrades-in-arms ?
>>>> Nobody rejects facts.
>>> You gotta be kidding!?!? 9/11 conspiracy theorists get through
>>> every day ONLY by rejecting facts.
>> Let's review: how are facts established? By a jury, by rules of
>> evidence, by due process, procedural rules, and by rules of appeal.
> No, that=92s how rule of law is established. I can establish facts
> without any of that.
You may posit facts, lay claim to facts, but the -establishment-
of facts does require the rule of law.
>> Not scientific method. Science is an unfinished work in progress.
> We=92re not talking =93science=94 but =93what happened on
> 9/11?=94 That=92s = pretty much done.
Why do you require science to be absent from our discussion?
>>>> One does not "lose" credibility by suspended judgment or deliberation.
>>> No, they lose credibility by being incorrect and not changing.
>> What does "not changing" have to do with anything?
> It has to do with continuing to assert disproven claims.
One might be "not changing" and correct. So the attribute
of "changing" or "not changing" has little to do with correctness.
> The fact that the community of qualified persons has overwhelmingly
> settled this issue came through the very investigative and
> deliberative process you support. Now it=92s time to support the
> conclusions. No dictator need apply.
Why would true conclusions require the support of anyone?
>>> The 9/11 commission BTW did not look at the collapses. NIST did.
>> So the 9/11 Commission was not thorough, and did not follow
>> up on ramifications and implications to certain story discrepancies
>> concerning the suspicious collapses of certain buildings at WTC.
> On the contrary, it was very thorough. Good lord, you=92re not even
> informed on the commission=92s task? The commission was not the body
> looking into the reasons for the collapses. Nor would you WANT them
> to, yet you complain they weren=92t =93thorough=94 by not doing so?
The reason for the collapses may bear upon the matter of who
were the perpetrators of 9/11. Surely that should have been among
the taskings of the 9/11 Commission.
>> We may discountenance such kooks, of course.
> Well, that=92s what we=92re doin=92 here, bub!
It would be kooky to discountenance anybody at variance
with the standard party line explanation, especially for this context
in which you have gone off the rails by diverting away from science.
> Flight 93 was seen by people on the ground for a great distance
> before it crashed, not only in its last five seconds. There was no
> fighter, no missile. It was not shot down. It was flying erratically
> and then nosed into the ground.
Erratic flying does not indicate plane or pilot disability? As
far as "nosed into the ground" wasn't this in excess of 500 mph?
Doesn't sound like a gentle phrase is an appropriate characterization.
>> Because they had foresight to willingly sacrifice themselves
>> to save the White House, Washington Monument, Mall, and
>> Capitol Buildings?
> That is a mischaracterization of the situation. It was, in fact, the
> opposite. They were trying to save themselves. They did not crash
> the plane. They were trying to retake it.
But if they cannot fly it then they cannot retake it. I'm sorry
to harp on logic here. You say they were willing to trade away
the hijacker pilots who can perform aerobatic miracles for their
own piloting deficiencies that lead into erratic plane crashings?
This despite the possibility of interceptor escort to safe landing?
Sounds to me like passenger-terrorists were incompetent idiots.
>>>> Yet cellphones don't work very well at high altitude, do they?
>>> Actually they do.
>> Funny. In 2001 cellphones didn't seem to work very well at all.
> You=92re wrong.
Then why were they relying upon GTE Airphone calls?
>>>> I suppose there are cellphone transcripts, however I am asking
>>>> for those portions of the transcripts which address "knowledge"
>>>> of attacks.
>>> Holy cow. Have you ever heard of Google?
>> Ever heard of suppression on "google" and unreliability of internet?
> Irrelevant to the fact that you can easily obtain the info you want
> through a Google search.
I might link to the wrong transcripts. Surely you have proper
and official reports at the ends of your knowledgeable fingertips?
Or are your "surrendering" a point for lack of presenting evidence?
>> Of course "numerous eyewtnesses" were on the lookout
>> for missiles and scrambled interceptor jets because that is their
>> standard protocol whenever they gather with large bags of popcorn
>> to watch yet another airplane nosedive into the cow pastures.
> To see a jet fighter shooting down a passenger airplane does not
> require any preparation on the observer=92s part. They simply
> see what is there.
Unless they see only what is there instead of what occurred
ten minutes prior.
>>>> ... I will travel the road to Flight 93's reassembly site. Can
>>>> you provide an address which I could locate via the roadmap?
>>> No. Do some work of your own for once.
>> I'm doing some work right now. I asked somebody who claimed
>> to be knowledgeable but instead the guy was full of only flim-flam.
> Looking in the mirror?
You're not following your own advice, to follow the evidence ...
>>>> Since you've been to the reassembly site for an examination of the
>>>> evidence can you supply any links to photos, documents, location?
>>> Google is your friend.
>> Nah. Google mungs the URLs, operated by Jews, and doesn't
>> respond to general telephone calls or email requests. Go figure.
> More joooo-hating paranoia on display.
I'm fairly confident that your remark will reform wayward Jews.
>>>> Why scramble interceptors if they haven't a chance to get close?
>>> It=3D92s fitting that you close with the stupidest question yet.
>> If Flight 93's passengers were getting cellphone reports then
>> why didn't they just sit tight and wait for jet interceptors to arrive?
> Mostly GTE Airphone calls=85
> Because they didn=92t.
So they're really not the "heroes" they're made out to be...
> What do you =93think=94 a jet interceptor does, sweetcakes?
Attempts to communicate with the plane and warn him down.
If not, fires test missiles, tries to communicate again. Obtains an
authorization if necessary to conduct physical shootdown. Tries
to disable into an immediate forced but non-destructive landing.
> How does that change the fact that if the passengers don=92t
> retake the plane they=92re all dead?
They might not be all dead if the hijackers are persuaded
to change the inflight movie. Alternate endings, and so forth.
- regards
- jb
----------------------------------------------------------
Gadzooks!
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=4456
----------------------------------------------------------
Day Brown
> Demental doesn't make claims. He screeches conspiracy but never says
> exactly what he thinks happened instead, let alone provide any
> supporting evidence.
hominum vs the number who cite what they think is relevant data, I see
that those who support the official 911 report resort to ad hominum far
more often than those who ask relevant questions and offer what they
think is relevant photos, video, and engineering analysis.
Vandar
That's because the questions have been answered multiple times, in
multiple forums, by multiple people.
When you ignore the answers to your questions, ridicule is all you
deserve when you ask the same questions again.
BDK
>
> "george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message news:0db6721b-63ce-478c...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 5, 1:12 pm, BDK <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote:
> >> In article <fvl9o3$63...@aioe.org>, johnone...@gmail.com says...
> >
> >> > Run, george, run.
> >>
> >> He's too busy laughing.
> >
> > At the thought that I'd run from the evidence of 911..
>
> You are. That's as clear as day, georgieboy.
Your idea of running must differ greatly from a sane person's, Aunt Flo.
>
> > Of course demental is worth a chuckle or three...
>
> You can chuckel all you want, "debunker". The moment of truth approaches.
Like it's been for how many years now? I think more "chuckeling" is in
order.
>
> Will be fun watching you and your reactions then, george.
I'm sure he's gonna be laughing, like the rest of us.
>
> > What will his next comedic claim be I wonder ?
>
> George is a liar.
Of course that would be the next comedic claim.
>
> And that's not a comedic claim, georgieboy.
Of course it is! You can't do much of anything else but make comedic
claims, can you, Aunt Flo?
BDK
BDK
@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, gbl...@hnpl.net says...
He's already the biggest "butt" around, so what will be be in six more
years?
BDK
BDK
BWHAHAHAHAHAA! You really are a one of a kind conspirokook!
BDK
george
Iarnrod
> > "-" wrote:
> >> The Partin-presumed ordinary bomb was a preliminary hypothesis.
> > And it was incorrect. Known now to be incorrect. Yet he still uses it.
> > Hmmmm. And he came to that conclusion within =93hours=94 of the event.
>
> Since you say "he still uses it" do you have the date and/or
> reference of him when he last used it?
No.
> Is there any record of an evidentiary confrontation?
Yes.
> Why has nobody apprised him recently?
He’s a kook.
> If he regards that conclusion as the only possible one it signals
> a closed mind.
That’s Partin to a “T.”
> Though the same could be said for anyone who
> thinks of their own conclusion(s) as the only possible ones.
Not if the conclusion is the only possible one.
> Crucial
> to this determination is whether he was given an opportunity to review
> alternative conclusions and what he has to say by way of feedback.
> Lacking such conferencing, it is doubtful whether anybody involved
> can lay claim to an open mind.
Well, that means I can and he can’t.
Denying facts is not an open mind; it’s a sick one.
> >> Later it came to be replaced by another subsidiary hypothesis. To
> >> claim that something exists merely on account of being subsidiary
> >> is faulty.
> > Well, your premise is wrong right there, so your conclusion is wrong,
>
> You're a slow learner, apparently.
No, you are a poor reader. Read it again, more slowly.
> >> Any evidence for nitromethane substitution is supplied by
> >> corroborations which you have not cited, not by the McVeigh cite.
> > The three 55-gallon drum purchase of nitromethane by McVeigh is
> > completely documented and corroborated. The storage shed also
> > yielded evidence of it.
>
> Yes, this is what I recall. Now your method of presentation
> has been refined to discuss "the purchase" (receipts in evidence)
> & "chemical testing of storage shed." These would be acceptable
> methods for corroboration of hypothesis, not McVeigh's testimony.
> Perhaps with regards to the Flight 93 investigation we may improve
> your standards for documentation and evidentiary substantiation.
BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! You finally manage to learn someithing and you have
the temerity to pretend that *I* learned it!! Good try!! “E” for
effort!
> For the "plan fact" of Flight 93's "no shootdown" status you
> perhaps refer to a reassembly though without any documentation
> for it, no idea of who conducted analysis of the reassembly, and
> no idea where it was done nor where reassembly is located now.
This is merely evidence that you have not been following this
discussion; that is a complete mischaracterization of it.
> In other words, what you might term "plain fact" is hardly plain at all.
No. It’s plain.
> And, with all of the OKC researchers, there is more than a decade
> of opportunities for Partin to be confronted with audio-visual evidence
> of that confrontation. So nobody has aggressively taken him to task?
Don’t know, don’t care.
> How could you expect me to speak for or against him on his behalf?
I don’t. I am merely educating you about the people with whom you
choose to surround yourself intellectually. Sort of an elbow nudge so
that you might be a bit more careful in choosing your sources of info
that already have been debunked.
> He might be wrong about the bomb composition, but it is anyone's
> guess what the actual explosive power of the bomb amounted to.
Not really. It’s completely calculable in fact.
> >> Thereby, to conduct -thorough- investigation, which seems not
> >> to be your habit,
> > On the contrary, it appears to be my habit and not his.
>
> Yet you have not confronted Partin with your version, so we do
> do claim that -YOUR- investigation has been thoroughly thorough.
English please.
> >>>> Though I don't claim to -know- that there were other explosions.
> >>>> There was merely a possibility that some evidence might indicate so.
> >>> The evidence is in, and it says not.
> >> The evidence, from various sources, requires interpretation.
> > The interpretation is in, and it also says not.
>
> Interpretation of why McVeigh drove away without a license
> plate, or with expired tabs, or aroused attentions of the police?
Unrelated to the fact that there were no other bombs in the building.
> >> In general, "surrender" occurs only by means of compliance.
> > That=92s not true at all. Many surrender without complying.
> > They forfeit. That=92s what you did on that point.
>
> Are you saying there was no other report from a police
> officer nor any independent seismological data? Proving a
> negative once again?
AIEEIEIEEE!!! Read for *comprehension* please, dearie.
> >> You claimed "surrender" outright without obtaining a signature
> >> document or treaty indicating compliance and the specific terms.
> > So? You surrendered. You even wrote it.
>
> Wrote what? Do you now parade your standards for research?
> If so, which you got wrong when something was in front of your
> face, what chance do you have with independent objective research?
I wasn’t wrong. You surrendered – you “forfeited” the point. It’s
upthread. Really it is. You can stop now.
> There was for a time being
> that hypothesis of multiple explosions at OKC, and investigations.
No there wasn’t. A high noise-to-signal ratio regarding the actual
facts on the day of the event doesn’t constitute a hypothesis being
formed that required any further investigation than “well, no, there
weren’t multiple explosions or bombs found in the building.”
> Nobody here is whining about the "no planes" theory. The
> Devvy article which forms the inception for this thread attempted
> to refute the "no planes" theory.
Kook vs kook!
> Moreover she introduced the
> shootdown theory in addition to refuting the "no planes" theory.
> You might want to ask yourself why the NIST is taking its time on
> the WTC7 investigation. Evidently there is a problem wrapping
> up those loose ends.
Not really. You wanted thorough. You’re getting it. “Thorough” does
not mean “problem.” This type of scattershot approach to logic and
analysis, I note, is the hallmark of your reasoning “skills.”
> >> Your _ad_hominem_ logical fallacy is a disreputable method.
> > Learn the difference between an ad hominem fallacy and a
> > gratuitous insult. The insult is not part of the argumentation.
> > The argument was already disposed of.
>
> If you're typing things not part of the argumentation then you
> are casual about wasting your own time and the time of others.
Holy CRAP!!! BWAHAHAHHAHAAAAA!!! This is *alt.conspiracy* on *usenet*
on the *Internet!!!* “ Waste of time” is the nature of it. Did you
mistake this forum for some peer-reviewed process???
BWAHAHAAHAAAHAAAA!!!!
> If you "HAD the argument" then you proceeded to RUIN your
> own presentation by confusing your argument with ad hominem
> gratuitous insults.
Not at all. Insults don’t ruin an argument on usenet; they are the
salt and spice. I mean, this *is* alt.conspiracy. Stop thinking you’re
Rachmaninoff when you’re merely trying to be the piano player in the
bawdy house!!
> Being wrong on a particular point does not suffice to reduce
> somebody's credibility to zero.
No, being wrong on the ENTIRE argument does.
> How are you able to determine what is a lie, unless you were there?
Easily.
> >> So the scrambled interceptors were just waiting for
> >> Flight 93 to arrive into their own airspace?
> > Again I introduce to you the concept of =93time.=94 The event was
> > over before any interceptors could get to where Flight 93 was.
>
> The passengers could have been informed that interceptors
> would be on standby for an escort -OR- shootdown.
They weren’t. “Could haves” are nice. But “was’s” rule the day.
> Yet you insist on calling those passenger
> terrorists as "heroes" ?
I did? When did I do that. I’ll wait…..
Still waiting…..
> You seem to suggest it was a foregone
> conclusion that no escorting by an interceptor was possible,
> which implies that you could read the minds of the hijackers
> even before the attack was to be consummated.
Not at all. Again I see logical reasoning skills are not your strong
suit. They’re not even your weak suit. You have no suit!
> Why would the hijackers crash an airplane in the middle of
> a cow pasture instead of at some target of symbolic significance?
They had no chance to reach a target once the passengers breached the
cockpit.
> What was a significance of cellphone conversations with Flight 93
> passengers if none of the cellphone conversations led to the
> Hollywood hypothesis that passengers turned counter-terrorists
> stormed the Flight 93 cockpit, battled with hijackers and crashed
> the plane to save our Nation's Proud Historical Image?
That makes no sense at all. Sorry.
> On other
> airplanes the hijackers are credited with aerobatic miracles…
Only by kookers. Crashing a plane into a building is not an aerobatic
miracle.
> yet
> you would claim that the Flight 93 pilots knew only how to crash
> in a cow pasture, not how to take off and fly like their supposed
> comrades-in-arms ?
Another complete mischaracterization of the situation. You’re really
struggling here to hold onto any point at all.
> You may posit facts, lay claim to facts, but the -establishment-
> of facts does require the rule of law.
No it doesn’t. I establish facts every day of my life, as do others.
The rule of law is not assisting me.
> >>>> One does not "lose" credibility by suspended judgment or deliberation.
> >>> No, they lose credibility by being incorrect and not changing.
> >> What does "not changing" have to do with anything?
> > It has to do with continuing to assert disproven claims.
>
> One might be "not changing" and correct.
Of course, like me.
> So the attribute
> of "changing" or "not changing" has little to do with correctness.
Another straw man from you. That was not my argument. The
incorrectness of Partin is already established. It’s not that he
“doesn’t change” that makes him incorrect.
> >>> The 9/11 commission BTW did not look at the collapses. NIST did.
> >> So the 9/11 Commission was not thorough, and did not follow
> >> up on ramifications and implications to certain story discrepancies
> >> concerning the suspicious collapses of certain buildings at WTC.
> > On the contrary, it was very thorough. Good lord, you=92re not even
> > informed on the commission=92s task? The commission was not the body
> > looking into the reasons for the collapses. Nor would you WANT them
> > to, yet you complain they weren=92t =93thorough=94 by not doing so?
>
> The reason for the collapses may bear upon the matter of who
> were the perpetrators of 9/11. Surely that should have been among
> the taskings of the 9/11 Commission.
You mean to say you’ve doggy-paddeld this far out into the pool
without even knowing the basics of 9/11?
Poor jazzercizer!!
> > Flight 93 was seen by people on the ground for a great distance
> > before it crashed, not only in its last five seconds. There was no
> > fighter, no missile. It was not shot down. It was flying erratically
> > and then nosed into the ground.
>
> Erratic flying does not indicate plane or pilot disability?
Another straw man!!
> As
> far as "nosed into the ground" wasn't this in excess of 500 mph?
> Doesn't sound like a gentle phrase is an appropriate characterization.
“Nosed into the ground” is hardly gentle, sweetie. Do you read much?
> But if they cannot fly it then they cannot retake it.
That’s a completely false statement. They can retake it even if not a
single one of them can subsequently fly it.
As I have pointed out repeatedly, logic is not your strong suit.
Better you should stick to innuendo.
> I'm sorry to harp on logic here.
BWAHAHAAAAA!! How inappropriate of you on the heels of your glaring
errors in logic!! You OUGHT to harp on it, but in remedial sense!!
> You say they were willing to trade away
> the hijacker pilots who can perform aerobatic miracles for their
> own piloting deficiencies that lead into erratic plane crashings?
Who said that? Another straw man! A. There were no “aerobatic
miracles” on 9/11. B. Passengers would have no ability to assess the
hijackers skills, they only know the hijackers intend to crash and
kill them all. C. You violate your own “lessons” by assuming no one on
the plane could have taken the yoke. You are aware that these planes
can land themselves, are you not?
> This despite the possibility of interceptor escort to safe landing?
How did the passengers know this? Even if an interceptor was visible
outside the window, do explain how this forces suicide hijackers to
turn to the nearest runway!
Rationalize some more here for us.
> >>>> Yet cellphones don't work very well at high altitude, do they?
> >>> Actually they do.
> >> Funny. In 2001 cellphones didn't seem to work very well at all.
> > You=92re wrong.
>
> Then why were they relying upon GTE Airphone calls?
Wow. Now that has to be the stupidest question yet, and that’s saying
something.
> >>>> I suppose there are cellphone transcripts, however I am asking
> >>>> for those portions of the transcripts which address "knowledge"
> >>>> of attacks.
> >>> Holy cow. Have you ever heard of Google?
> >> Ever heard of suppression on "google" and unreliability of internet?
> > Irrelevant to the fact that you can easily obtain the info you want
> > through a Google search.
>
> I might link to the wrong transcripts.
Take a chance.
> >>>> ... I will travel the road to Flight 93's reassembly site. Can
> >>>> you provide an address which I could locate via the roadmap?
> >>> No. Do some work of your own for once.
> >> I'm doing some work right now. I asked somebody who claimed
> >> to be knowledgeable but instead the guy was full of only flim-flam.
> > Looking in the mirror?
>
> You're not following your own advice, to follow the evidence ...
Sorry but you’re wrong. Re-read. Your remark makes no sense.
> >>>> Why scramble interceptors if they haven't a chance to get close?
> >>> It=3D92s fitting that you close with the stupidest question yet.
> >> If Flight 93's passengers were getting cellphone reports then
> >> why didn't they just sit tight and wait for jet interceptors to arrive?
> > Mostly GTE Airphone calls=85
> > Because they didn=92t.
>
> So they're really not the "heroes" they're made out to be...
Aren’t you running out of straw YET? Holy cow, sweetcakes. If you’d
follow the discussion you wouldn’t make such illogical statements as
that.
Cardinal Chunder
Uhuh. So perhaps you will state specifically and concisely what you
think happened on 9/11 if not the conventional explanation with
supporting evidence.
If you can't do that then don't be surprised when you are called a kook.
ecoman
>
> - Show quoted text -
<The rest of the world is passing you by! >
Yes, you included, its the phenomena of lemmings...like those who
still believe the world is flat...rush along in an unconscious manner
leaping off cliffs.
Iarnrod
ecoman wrote:
> On May 6, 6:56 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > ecoman wrote:
> > > On May 6, 5:18�pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 6, 9:08�am, ecoman <nigel.ecov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On May 5, 10:21�pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > � � � <Ahh, another joooooooooooo-hating paranoid! >
> >
> > > > > And that little phrase speaks volumes.
> >
> > > > What does it say to you, Nigel?
> >
> > > <What does it say to you, Nigel?>
> >
> > > That you are a pathetic and in severe denial...that you are afraid to
> > > be exposed and thus arrogantly try to hide your ignorance in a
> > > plethora of banality and circumstance.
> >
> > BWAHAHAAHAAAAA!!! You have GOT to be kidding!!
> >
> > Come out of your shell, Nigel. The rest of the world is passing you
> > by!
> >
> > <chuckle>- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> <The rest of the world is passing you by! >
>
> Yes, you included…
Guess again, Nigel. The world belongs to those who are sharp enough to
know fact from fiction.
> its the phenomena of lemmings...
Something you are intimately familiar with.
> like those who still believe the world is flat...
That would be the kooker community, believing in completely debunked
theories.
> rush along in an unconscious manner leaping off cliffs.
Would not include me! You’ve YET to highlight one single error you
“think” I’ve made.
So sorry!
george
> Yes, you included, its the phenomena of lemmings...like those who
> still believe the world is flat...rush along in an unconscious manner
> leaping off cliffs.
Whoa there.
How can you put a flat earth together with the incorrect claim about
lemmings leaping off cliffs ?
911 happened.
In most cases we watched it on TV as it happened.
It is only kooks and arab apologists who want the facts of 911 to go
away
-
>>> "-" wrote:
>>>> The Partin-presumed ordinary bomb was a preliminary hypothesis.
>> larnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> And it was incorrect. Known now to be incorrect.
>>> Yet he still uses it. Hmmmm. And he came to that
>>> conclusion within =3D93hours=3D94 of the even=t.
> "-" wrote:
>> Since you say "he still uses it" do you have the date and/or
>> reference of him when he last used it?
Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No.
When using the present tense, you were there not following
where the evidence leads. You -fabricated- that assertion.
>> Is there any record of an evidentiary confrontation?
> Yes.
Because you did not supply the URL and cite you
must be surrendering already.
>> Why has nobody apprised him recently?
> He=92s a kook.
Therefore, retired military generals turn into kooks ?
What happens to other people retired from the military ?
>> If he regards that conclusion as the only possible one it signals
>> a closed mind. Though the same could be said for anyone who
>> thinks of their own conclusion(s) as the only possible ones.
> Not if the conclusion is the only possible one.
Though they might have one correct conclusion, the fact
remains that they have a closed mind. That was the point.
BTW, other conclusions might also be correct conclusions.
>> Crucial to this determination is whether he was given an opportunity
>> to review alternative conclusions and what he has to say by way
>> of feedback. Lacking such conferencing, it is doubtful whether
>> anybody involved can lay claim to an open mind.
> Well, that means I can and he can=92t.
> Denying facts is not an open mind; it=92s a sick one.
Can't have your cake and eat it too. You hold to only one
possible conclusion and your mind is closed. That's why we
use the phrase "case closed." One does not need to deny facts
to draw an alternative conclusion. It's a matter of interpretation.
>> >> Later it came to be replaced by another subsidiary hypothesis. To
>> >> claim that something exists merely on account of being subsidiary
>> >> is faulty.
>> > Well, your premise is wrong right there, so your conclusion is wrong,
>> You're a slow learner, apparently. I informed you previously
>> that I'm not here to debate conclusions. The focus is principally
>> upon methodologies. [ ... ]
> No, you are a poor reader. Read it again, more slowly.
I studied the alphabet. You're still a slow learner. You rely
upon conclusions rather than upon re-examination of methodology.
>>>> Any evidence for nitromethane substitution is supplied by
>>>> corroborations which you have not cited, not by the McVeigh cite.
>>> The three 55-gallon drum purchase of nitromethane by McVeigh is
>>> completely documented and corroborated. The storage shed also
>>> yielded evidence of it.
>> Yes, this is what I recall. Now your method of presentation
>> has been refined to discuss "the purchase" (receipts in evidence)
>> & "chemical testing of storage shed." These would be acceptable
>> methods for corroboration of hypothesis, not McVeigh's testimony.
>> Perhaps with regards to the Flight 93 investigation we may improve
>> your standards for documentation and evidentiary substantiation.
> BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! You finally manage to learn someithing
> and you have the temerity to pretend that *I* learned it!! Good try!!
> =93E=94 for effort!
If you had learned that McVeigh's testimony was suspect then
you would not have wasted your time and ours by trying to cite it.
As for Flight 93 you have surrendered the point concerning where
we may find the reassembly, when and where it was conducted,
and who had conducted it. You have no documention of it. So
you have been following your dick and not the trail of evidence.
>> For the "plain fact" of Flight 93's "no shootdown" status you
>> perhaps refer to a reassembly though without any documentation
>> for it, no idea of who conducted analysis of the reassembly, and
>> no idea where it was done nor where reassembly is located now.
> This is merely evidence that you have not been following this
> discussion; that is a complete mischaracterization of it.
According to the FBI's reply to Mr. Monaghan's FOIA request,
there has been no document release of any supposed reassembly.
>> In other words, what you might term "plain fact" is hardly plain at all.
> No. It=92s plain.
Example of your denial of fact, and utter "anti-kook" kookery.
>> And, with all of the OKC researchers, there is more than a decade
>> of opportunities for Partin to be confronted with audio-visual evidence
>> of that confrontation. So nobody has aggressively taken him to task?
> Don=92t know, don=92t care.
Your admission of ignorance, lack of rigor w/r/t investigative method.
Perhaps your surrender writ with cold blood on that thrown towel...
>> How could you expect me to speak for or against him on his behalf?
> I don=92t. I am merely educating you about the people with whom you
> choose to surround yourself intellectually. Sort of an elbow nudge so
> that you might be a bit more careful in choosing your sources of info
> that already have been debunked.
I do not surround myself with Partin. I posted an article which
cited from Partin, concerning Col. Donn de Grand-Pre. You tried
to discredit everything Partin does/says by reference to his sketchy
speculations. In no way does one matter impinge upon the other.
>> He might be wrong about the bomb composition, but it is anyone's
>> guess what the actual explosive power of the bomb amounted to.
> Not really. It=92s completely calculable in fact.
Can you calculate the volume of this egg? Oops, you got it wrong!
>>>> Thereby, to conduct -thorough- investigation, which seems not
>>>> to be your habit,
>>> On the contrary, it appears to be my habit and not his.
>> Yet you have not confronted Partin with your version, so we do
>> not claim that -YOUR- investigation has been thoroughly thorough.
> English please.
Corrected (above) by removing typo.
>> Interpretation of why McVeigh drove away without a license
>> plate, or with expired tabs, or aroused attentions of the police?
> Unrelated to the fact that there were no other bombs in the building.
Related to the fact that somebody alleged to be so calculating
about bomb explosions would neglect to have a license plate.
>> Are you saying there was no other report from a police
>> officer nor any independent seismological data? Proving a
>> negative once again?
> AIEEIEIEEE!!! Read for *comprehension* please, dearie.
I asked questions, each of which are answered by "yes" or "no."
>>>> You claimed "surrender" outright without obtaining a signature
>>>> document or treaty indicating compliance and the specific terms.
>>> So? You surrendered. You even wrote it.
>> Wrote what? Do you now parade your standards for research?
>> If so, which you got wrong when something was in front of your
>> face, what chance do you have with independent objective research?
> I wasn=92t wrong. You surrendered =96 you =93forfeited=94 the point.
> It=92s upthread. Really it is. You can stop now.
I supplied "google" cites. How does that forfeit a point?
>> There was for a time being
>> that hypothesis of multiple explosions at OKC, and investigations.
> No there wasn=92t. A high noise-to-signal ratio regarding the actual
> facts on the day of the event doesn=92t constitute a hypothesis being
> formed that required any further investigation than =93well, no, there
> weren=92t multiple explosions or bombs found in the building.=94
Excuse me. I referernce the -hypothesis- of multiple explosions,
not the -actuality- of multiple explosions. Are you arguing that they
did not have any hypothesis? Many cites were clear from "google."
>> Nobody here is whining about the "no planes" theory. The
>> Devvy article which forms the inception for this thread attempted
>> to refute the "no planes" theory. Moreover she introduced the
>> shootdown theory in addition to refuting the "no planes" theory.
>> You might want to ask yourself why the NIST is taking its time on
>> the WTC7 investigation. Evidently there is a problem wrapping
>> up those loose ends.
> Not really. You wanted thorough. You=92re getting it. =93Thorough=94
> does not mean =93problem.=94 This type of scattershot approach
> to logic and analysis, I note, is the hallmark of your reasoning =93
> skills.=94
Perhaps you can explain why NIST is taking its time on
the WTC7 investigation? My "reasoning skills" ask questions !
>> >> Your _ad_hominem_ logical fallacy is a disreputable method.
>>> Learn the difference between an ad hominem fallacy and a
>>> gratuitous insult. The insult is not part of the argumentation.
>>> The argument was already disposed of.
>> If you're typing things not part of the argumentation then you
>> are casual about wasting your own time and the time of others.
> Holy CRAP!!! BWAHAHAHHAHAAAAA!!! This is *alt.conspiracy*
> on *usenet* on the *Internet!!!* =93 Waste of time=94 is the nature
> of it. Did you mistake this forum for some peer-reviewed process???
> BWAHAHAAHAAAHAAAA!!!!
All a matter of interpretation. There is a "conspiracy" genre
in the literature, and Hollywood, forming grist for the writer's mill.
Be known as a time-waster and you'll be relegated to the dustbin.
>> If you "HAD the argument" then you proceeded to RUIN your
>> own presentation by confusing your argument with ad hominem
>> gratuitous insults.
> Not at all. Insults don=92t ruin an argument on usenet; they are
> the salt and spice. I mean, this *is* alt.conspiracy. Stop thinking
> you=92re Rachmaninoff when you=92re merely trying to be the
> piano player in the bawdy house!!
That was Brahms who played in bawdy houses. Didn't
prevent him from composing masterpiece symphonies, etc.
>> Being wrong on a particular point does not suffice to reduce
>> somebody's credibility to zero.
> No, being wrong on the ENTIRE argument does.
You invoked OKC when the remark concerned Flight 93.
>> How are you able to determine what is a lie, unless you were there?
> Easily.
Sometimes you lose at Chess. Did your determinations fail?
>>>> So the scrambled interceptors were just waiting for
>>>> Flight 93 to arrive into their own airspace?
>>> Again I introduce to you the concept of =3D93time.=3D94 The event
>>> was over before any interceptors could get to where Flight 93 was.
>> The passengers could have been informed that interceptors
>> would be on standby for an escort -OR- shootdown.
> They weren=92t. =93Could haves=94 are nice. But =93was=92s=94 rule the day.
Having their cellphone numbers or GTE Airphones, the
White House could have informed them of imminent escort.
>> Yet you insist on calling those passenger terrorists as "heroes" ?
> I did? When did I do that. I=92ll wait=85.. Still waiting=85..
I posed a question. Yet you agree that passengers turned terrorist ?
I mean other passengers who were not those box-cutter hijackers.
>> You seem to suggest it was a foregone
>> conclusion that no escorting by an interceptor was possible,
>> which implies that you could read the minds of the hijackers
>> even before the attack was to be consummated.
> Not at all. Again I see logical reasoning skills are not your strong
> suit. They=92re not even your weak suit. You have no suit!
Because you are so skilled at determining what is truth and lie
it might be the case that you worked in the Department of PreCrime
for the Hollywood film _Minority_Report_. Then you would have
prescience of the crime in progress before it was being committed.
Your version appears to presume that nobody on Flight 93 was
aware of scrambled interceptor jets, nor even their possibility, yet
scrambling is standard operating procedure for hijacking events.
>> Why would the hijackers crash an airplane in the middle of
>> a cow pasture instead of at some target of symbolic significance?
> They had no chance to reach a target once the passengers
> breached the cockpit.
Why didn't the hijackers simply tell the passengers to remain
calm and wait for the scrambled interceptor jets who would either
escort them to a safe landing or shoot them down out of the sky?
>> What was a significance of cellphone conversations with Flight 93
>> passengers if none of the cellphone conversations led to the
>> Hollywood hypothesis that passengers turned counter-terrorists
>> stormed the Flight 93 cockpit, battled with hijackers and crashed
>> the plane to save our Nation's Proud Historical Image?
> That makes no sense at all. Sorry.
Surely the passengers turned counter-terrorists would be
thinking through all of the implications and ramifications to their
actions, else such actions would be characterized as insane
and even more dangerous to life and limb than the hijackers.
>> On other airplanes the hijackers are credited with aerobatic miracles
>> yet you would claim that the Flight 93 pilots knew only how to crash
>> in a cow pasture, not how to take off and fly like their supposed
>> comrades-in-arms ?
> Only by kookers. Crashing a plane into a building is not an aerobatic
> miracle. Another complete mischaracterization of the situation.
> You=92re really struggling here to hold onto any point at all.
Building crashing is not very easy to do, and I invite you to try it.
I'm not speaking of the computer flight simulator that you train with.
It's the general consensus that Flight 77's banked turn is well-nigh
impossible to execute, an aerobatic miracle, or computer-controlled.
>> You may posit facts, lay claim to facts, but the -establishment-
>> of facts does require the rule of law.
> No it doesn=92t. I establish facts every day of my life, as do others.
> The rule of law is not assisting me.
You are asserting them for yourself and claiming them as your
own. For a context of social discourse, "establish" is by rule of law.
>> One might be "not changing" and correct.
> Of course, like me.
Though there was a time prior to your knowledge when you did not know.
>> So the attribute
>> of "changing" or "not changing" has little to do with correctness.
> Another straw man from you. That was not my argument. The
> incorrectness of Partin is already established. It=92s not that he
> =93doesn=92t change=94 that makes him incorrect.
With regards to one point concerning bomb blast at OKC, which
is not what we are talking about with regards to Flight 93 shootdown.
>> The reason for the collapses may bear upon the matter of who
>> were the perpetrators of 9/11. Surely that should have been among
>> the taskings of the 9/11 Commission.
> You mean to say you=92ve doggy-paddeld this far out into the pool
> without even knowing the basics of 9/11?
How does anybody "know" the basics of 9/11 unless they were
on the inside? Care to turn yourself into the federal authorities?
>> Erratic flying does not indicate plane or pilot disability?
> Another straw man!!
Oh, I know: erratic flying means they were into the liquor cabinet.
>> As far as "nosed into the ground" wasn't this in excess of 500 mph?
>> Doesn't sound like a gentle phrase is an appropriate characterization.
> =93Nosed into the ground=94 is hardly gentle, sweetie. Do you read much?
Might use that phrase for a landing beyond the runway.
>> But if they cannot fly it then they cannot retake it.
> That=92s a completely false statement. They can retake it even
> if not a single one of them can subsequently fly it.
With the pilot dead they'll need to ask the hijackers to fly it.
> As I have pointed out repeatedly, logic is not your strong suit.
> Better you should stick to innuendo.
Hmmm. Perhaps I would think twice about storming the cockpit
especially if it leads to that euphemistic "nosing into the ground."
It seems, however, that you regard actions by passenger-terrorists
as logical, if not entirely "heroic."
>> I'm sorry to harp on logic here.
> BWAHAHAAAAA!! How inappropriate of you on the heels of your glaring
> errors in logic!! You OUGHT to harp on it, but in remedial sense!!
You characterize alternative conclusions by errors in logic, yet
you are unfamiliar with the procedure by methodological inquiry.
>> You say they were willing to trade away
>> the hijacker pilots who can perform aerobatic miracles for their
>> own piloting deficiencies that lead into erratic plane crashings?
> Who said that? Another straw man! A. There were no =93aerobatic
> miracles=94 on 9/11. B. Passengers would have no ability to assess
> the hijackers skills, they only know the hijackers intend to crash and
> kill them all. C. You violate your own =93lessons=94 by assuming no
> one on the plane could have taken the yoke. You are aware that
> these planes can land themselves, are you not?
It was probably better to crash now in Pennsylvania and get it
over with than to crash later, or maybe not at all crash later if the
jet interceptor escorts persuade hijackers into peaceful resolution?
This, by the way, is what you appear to allege as your "logic."
If the planes can land themselves then why weren't the planes
rendered crashproof? Why not usurped by remote controls?
>> This despite the possibility of interceptor escort to safe landing?
> How did the passengers know this? Even if an interceptor was visible
> outside the window, do explain how this forces suicide hijackers to
> turn to the nearest runway! Rationalize some more here for us.
The suicide hijackers are made aware that interceptors may
threaten their mission to strike the target. Once it is made known
to them that their mission will be thwarted a force-of-reason which
leads them to their target gets interrupted. They land it, instead.
If the plane is not shot down in Pennsylvania it will be shot down
en route at another location. Pure logic, but not quite "thinkable."
>>>>>> I suppose there are cellphone transcripts, however I am asking
>>>>>> for those portions of the transcripts which address "knowledge"
>>>>>> of attacks.
>>>>> Holy cow. Have you ever heard of Google?
>>>> Ever heard of suppression on "google" and unreliability of internet?
>>> Irrelevant to the fact that you can easily obtain the info you want
>>> through a Google search.
>> I might link to the wrong transcripts.
> Take a chance.
The only transcripts I can locate are those with Flight 93 pilots
and radio control, maybe FAA and/or other towers. If you know
how to obtain transcripts of cell-phone conversations and/or the
GE Airphone conversations, then please let us know. Otherwise
your discussion is not following the trail of evidence.
>>>>>> ... I will travel the road to Flight 93's reassembly site. Can
>>>>>> you provide an address which I could locate via the roadmap?
>>>>> No. Do some work of your own for once.
>>>> I'm doing some work right now. I asked somebody who claimed
>>>> to be knowledgeable but instead the guy was full of only flim-flam.
>>> Looking in the mirror?
>> You're not following your own advice, to follow the evidence ...
> Sorry but you=92re wrong. Re-read. Your remark makes no sense.
I put the re-read into a looping pattern via computer program
control. I don't find any documentary evidence of reassembly, so
I presume that you squirreled it away when you followed that trail.
If you don't have it, then by your own words you are surrendering.
>>>>>> Why scramble interceptors if they haven't a chance to get close?
>>>>> It=3D3D92s fitting that you close with the stupidest question yet.
>>>> If Flight 93's passengers were getting cellphone reports then
>>>> why didn't they just sit tight and wait for jet interceptors to arrive?
>>> Because they didn=3D92t.
>> So they're really not the "heroes" they're made out to be...
> Aren=92t you running out of straw YET? Holy cow, sweetcakes.
> If you=92d follow the discussion you wouldn=92t make such illogical
> statements as that.
If there were a discussion (i.e. evidentiary trail) to follow then
it wouldn't be difficult to follow. Good physics can be understood
by pre-teen children. Your utterances are not very good physics.
- regards
- jb
Day Brown
only that the official reports do not add up. That's not the same thing
as having a conspiracy theory. I dont have any such theory I wanna
defend because I dont have enuf data I can depend on. I most certainly
do not depend on the mass media as you have, and have not ever since I
saw them spin what Goldwater was trying to say.
I dont claim that the defenders of the official reports are kooks, only
that they have been suckered. If you have the attention span, read
Machiavelli and Gibbon. http://daybrown.org/gibbon/gibbon.html is in an
experimental font that requires a pretty high res monitor, but there are
other websites to check it all out.
And of course, suckers do not want to hear about how they have been
deceived, and therefore get angry and attack anyone who tries to show
them how it was done. Read Dr. Freud. But dont bother calling me a Liberal.
Al Dykes
We have no evidence that 93 was shot at in any way. We have all this
evidence that it crashed into the ground at Shanksville.
[1] DNA for all passangers crew found and identified
[2] The hole
[3] 95% of the airplane recovered in the hole
[4] Black boxes recovered and analyzed
[5] Video of Phanton hitting wall
[6] Lots of Flight 93 links
[7] 1960 Air-to-air collision NYC
[8] Analysis of Flt 93 Balck Boxes
[9] 1,200 investigators and first responders,.
[10] Remains of aircraft in storage.
[11] Papers & light objects found up to 8 miles from the crash
[12] Pictures
[13] Largest peice of Flt 93 was half a ton
[14] Coroner Statement
[15] Flight Data Recorder data and WTC data for Flt 93
[16] THE NORAD RESPONSE TO 9/11 COmplete timing and FAA info
[1] --------------------------------------------------------------------------
DNA
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011220shanksville1220p2.asp
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2fhpe8
Links to forensics and hijacker identification
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/linksto911forensicsaqndvictimidentificat
The hijacker's license
http://bp0.blogger.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/RzjIqhqANiI/AAAAAAAAAuw/8Ve-LbpabIs/s1600-h/PA00101A.jpg
[2] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hole:
The aircraft impacted at approximately 563 mph (906 km/h), at a
40 degree angle.[26] The impact left a crater about 115 feet (35
m) wide and 10 to 12 feet (about 3.5 m) deep. There were no
survivors among the 44 passengers, crew and terrorists (all were
killed by the impact or had been previously killed during
flight).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5tvkk
[3] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the in the news on 9/24/2001, CNN reports 95% or the aircraft
was recovered form that hole including both black boxes.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/24/inv.pennsylvania.site/index.html
CNN.com
FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe
SHANKSVILLE, Pennsylvania (CNN) --The FBI announced Monday that its
investigation of the site where a hijacked jet slammed into a field
here is complete and that 95 percent of the plane was recovered.
The federal investigation into the September 11 terrorist attacks
continues.
Evidence-gathering was halted Saturday afternoon and the pieces of
United Airlines Flight 93 that had been recovered were turned over
Sunday to the airline, with the exception of the flight data recorder
and the voice recorder, which are being held and analyzed by the FBI,
according to FBI agent Bill Crowley.
Crowley said the biggest piece of the plane that was recovered was a
6-by-7-foot piece of the fuselage skin, including about four
windows. The heaviest piece, Crowley said, was part of an engine fan,
weighing about 1,000 pounds.
Flight 93 was one of four jets hijacked Sept. 11. Authorities believe
the flight, which originated in Newark, New Jersey, and had been
destined for San Francisco, was headed for the nation's capital, where
the hijackers may have intended to slam it into the White House or the
Capitol.
Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller have
praised the passengers of that flight, saying it appears their actions
in trying to regain control of the aircraft averted a greater tragedy.
People who spoke by phone with passengers after the plane was hijacked
say that after the passengers found out about the earlier World Trade
Center attack, they decided to try to overpower the hijackers.
And officials familiar with the flight's cockpit voice recorder say it
shows there was a "definite struggle," which they described as
desperate and wild, between hijackers and some of the passengers.
All 44 people on board the flight were killed when it slammed into the
ground.
[4] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black boxes recovered and analyzed
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf
] Black boxes recovered and analyzed
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf
Of the airliner parts, the pieces that investigators judged
most significant were the plane's cockpit voice recorder and
flight data recorder, both unearthed within 3 1/2 days of the
crash. The voice recording that remained is being analyzed for
clues to confirm the identities of the four hijackers who
seized the Newark-to-San Francisco flight before it crashed.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010925scene0925p2.asp
[5] ------------
Video of Phanton hitting wall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8
[6] Lots of Flight 93 links
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93shanksvillesummaryofevidence%2Cman
[7] Air-to-air collision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_New_York_air_disaster
[8] ----------------
Black boxes recovered and analyzed
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf
Discussed : http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102924
[9] 1,200 investigators and first responders,.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93shanksvillesummaryofevidence%2Cman
[10] --------------------
Remains of aircraft in storage.
Since it had no more use for it, the FBI turned the airliner debris
-- but not the data and voice recorders -- over to United Airlines
yesterday. Asked what United will do with the debris, airline
spokeswoman Whitney Staley said, "I don't think a decision has been
made ... but we're not commenting."
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010925scene0925p2.asp
"With the recovery Friday night of the cockpit voice
recorder from United Flight 93, workers at the crash site
have shifted their focus to a long, arduous search for what remains of
the jet and its victims.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010916otherjetnat5p5.asp
[11] -----------------------------
Debris from the crash has been found up to 8 miles from the crash
site, but searchers are concentrating on the crater where most of
the remains are located. Papers and other light objects were
carried aloft by the explosion after impact of the plane and they
were transported by a nine-knot wind.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010916otherjetnat5p5.asp
[12] -----------------------------
Pictures
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200061.html
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200062.html
Live news coverage showing debris http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeWi0JpI__M
The hijacker's license
http://bp0.blogger.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/RzjIqhqANiI/AAAAAAAAAuw/8Ve-LbpabIs/s1600-h/PA00101A.jpg
[13] -----------------------
FBI spokesman Bill Crowley said that the largest piece of plane
recovered was a shred of fuselage skin that covered four windows --
a
piece seven feet long from a jetliner that was 155 feet long.
The heaviest piece, he said, was a half-ton section of engine fan.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010925scene0925p2.asp
[14] --------------------
Once he was able to absorb the scene, Miller says, "I stopped
being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no
bodies there. It became like a giant funeral service." As a
funeral director, Miller says, he is honored and humbled to
preside over what has become essentially an immense cemetery
stretching far into the scenic wooded mountain ridge. He
considers it the final resting place of 40 national heroes.
He saw dust, not bodies.
[15] -----------------------------------
Flight Data Recorder data and WTC data for Flt 93
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm
[16] ----------------------------
THE NORAD RESPONSE TO 9/11 Compiled by Andrew Burfield
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2164577#post2164577
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
Iarnrod
> >>> "-" wrote:
> >>>> The Partin-presumed ordinary bomb was a preliminary hypothesis.
>
> >> larnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> And it was incorrect. Known now to be incorrect.
> >>> Yet he still uses it. Hmmmm. And he came to that
> >>> conclusion within =3D93hours=3D94 of the even=t.
>
> > "-" wrote:
> >> Since you say "he still uses it" do you have the date and/or
> >> reference of him when he last used it?
>
> Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > No.
>
>
> When using the present tense, you were there not following
> where the evidence leads. You -fabricated- that assertion.
That’s a lie that exposes your lack of reasoning skills. It’s a true
assertion, whether or not I possess the date that he last used it.
> >> Is there any record of an evidentiary confrontation?
>
> > Yes.
>
> Because you did not supply the URL and cite you
> must be surrendering already.
Another completely illogical conclusion on your part.
> >> Why has nobody apprised him recently?
>
> > He=92s a kook.
>
> Therefore, retired military generals turn into kooks ?
> What happens to other people retired from the military ?
The *third* illogical conclusion in your first three statements. Are
you going for the record?
> >> Crucial to this determination is whether he was given an opportunity
> >> to review alternative conclusions and what he has to say by way
> >> of feedback. Lacking such conferencing, it is doubtful whether
> >> anybody involved can lay claim to an open mind.
>
> > Well, that means I can and he can=92t.
> > Denying facts is not an open mind; it=92s a sick one.
>
> Can't have your cake and eat it too. You hold to only one
> possible conclusion and your mind is closed.
That’s four!
> >>>> Any evidence for nitromethane substitution is supplied by
> >>>> corroborations which you have not cited, not by the McVeigh cite.
> >>> The three 55-gallon drum purchase of nitromethane by McVeigh is
> >>> completely documented and corroborated. The storage shed also
> >>> yielded evidence of it.
>
> >> Yes, this is what I recall. Now your method of presentation
> >> has been refined to discuss "the purchase" (receipts in evidence)
> >> & "chemical testing of storage shed." These would be acceptable
> >> methods for corroboration of hypothesis, not McVeigh's testimony.
> >> Perhaps with regards to the Flight 93 investigation we may improve
> >> your standards for documentation and evidentiary substantiation.
>
> > BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! You finally manage to learn something
> > and you have the temerity to pretend that *I* learned it!! Good try!!
> > =93E=94 for effort!
>
>
> If you had learned that McVeigh's testimony was suspect then
> you would not have wasted your time and ours by trying to cite it.
Wasn’t a waste of time; his info led directly to the discovery of the
corroborating documentary evidence.
> As for Flight 93 you have surrendered the point concerning where
> we may find the reassembly, when and where it was conducted,
> and who had conducted it. You have no documention of it. So
> you have been following your dick and not the trail of evidence.
I don’t have a “dick,” moron.
That’s five!
> >> For the "plain fact" of Flight 93's "no shootdown" status you
> >> perhaps refer to a reassembly though without any documentation
> >> for it, no idea of who conducted analysis of the reassembly, and
> >> no idea where it was done nor where reassembly is located now.
>
> > This is merely evidence that you have not been following this
> > discussion; that is a complete mischaracterization of it.
>
>
> According to the FBI's reply to Mr. Monaghan's FOIA request,
> there has been no document release of any supposed reassembly.
And another complete mischaracterization of the discussion. You do
like to conflate unrelated things, don’t you!
> >> In other words, what you might term "plain fact" is hardly plain at all.
>
> > No. It=92s plain.
>
> Example of your denial of fact, and utter "anti-kook" kookery.
Sorry but it’s not. It is plain.
> >> And, with all of the OKC researchers, there is more than a decade
> >> of opportunities for Partin to be confronted with audio-visual evidence
> >> of that confrontation. So nobody has aggressively taken him to task?
>
> > Don=92t know, don=92t care.
>
> Your admission of ignorance, lack of rigor w/r/t investigative method.
> Perhaps your surrender writ with cold blood on that thrown towel...
No, simply what it is… Partin is of no consequence because he is
grossly in error. Whether others choose to confront him on it is not
my concern.
> >> How could you expect me to speak for or against him on his behalf?
>
> > I don=92t. I am merely educating you about the people with whom you
> > choose to surround yourself intellectually. Sort of an elbow nudge so
> > that you might be a bit more careful in choosing your sources of info
> > that already have been debunked.
>
>
> I do not surround myself with Partin. I posted an article which
> cited from Partin, concerning Col. Donn de Grand-Pre. You tried
> to discredit everything Partin does/says by reference to his sketchy
> speculations.
That’s a lie. I discredited is OKC statements. Those ARE the sketchy
statements. I don’t discredit him WITH them, I proved THEM wrong.
Learn to reason, jazzercizer!
> >> He might be wrong about the bomb composition, but it is anyone's
> >> guess what the actual explosive power of the bomb amounted to.
>
> > Not really. It=92s completely calculable in fact.
>
>
> Can you calculate the volume of this egg? Oops, you got it wrong!
We can calculate the actual explosive power of the bomb. If you doubt
that, then you are not very smart.
> >>>> Thereby, to conduct -thorough- investigation, which seems not
> >>>> to be your habit,
>
> >>> On the contrary, it appears to be my habit and not his.
>
> >> Yet you have not confronted Partin with your version, so we do
> >> not claim that -YOUR- investigation has been thoroughly thorough.
>
> > English please.
>
>
> Corrected (above) by removing typo.
Well, then now it’s just a stupid statement. OK.
I don’t have to confront Partin to conduct a thorough investigation,
since he has nothing of value to the investigation. In fact, Partin
has merely taken what he mistakenly thinks is data from the
investigation and misanalysed it.
> >> Interpretation of why McVeigh drove away without a license
> >> plate, or with expired tabs, or aroused attentions of the police?
>
> > Unrelated to the fact that there were no other bombs in the building.
>
>
> Related to the fact that somebody alleged to be so calculating
> about bomb explosions would neglect to have a license plate.
That hardly follows at all.
Point of fact: McVeigh did not NEGLECT to have a license plate; he
purposely removed it and left it in the storage shed.
> >>>> You claimed "surrender" outright without obtaining a signature
> >>>> document or treaty indicating compliance and the specific terms.
>
> >>> So? You surrendered. You even wrote it.
>
> >> Wrote what? Do you now parade your standards for research?
> >> If so, which you got wrong when something was in front of your
> >> face, what chance do you have with independent objective research?
>
> > I wasn=92t wrong. You surrendered =96 you =93forfeited=94 the point.
> > It=92s upthread. Really it is. You can stop now.
>
>
> I supplied "google" cites. How does that forfeit a point?
Actually you supplied nothing. Now you’re fabricating your story.
> >> >> Your _ad_hominem_ logical fallacy is a disreputable method.
>
> >>> Learn the difference between an ad hominem fallacy and a
> >>> gratuitous insult. The insult is not part of the argumentation.
> >>> The argument was already disposed of.
>
> >> If you're typing things not part of the argumentation then you
> >> are casual about wasting your own time and the time of others.
>
> > Holy CRAP!!! BWAHAHAHHAHAAAAA!!! This is *alt.conspiracy*
> > on *usenet* on the *Internet!!!* =93 Waste of time=94 is the nature
> > of it. Did you mistake this forum for some peer-reviewed process???
> > BWAHAHAAHAAAHAAAA!!!!
>
>
> All a matter of interpretation. There is a "conspiracy" genre
> in the literature, and Hollywood, forming grist for the writer's mill.
> Be known as a time-waster and you'll be relegated to the dustbin.
You’re in there now, as a matter of fact!
> >> Being wrong on a particular point does not suffice to reduce
> >> somebody's credibility to zero.
>
> > No, being wrong on the ENTIRE argument does.
>
>
> You invoked OKC when the remark concerned Flight 93.
Same would apply.
> >>>> So the scrambled interceptors were just waiting for
> >>>> Flight 93 to arrive into their own airspace?
>
> >>> Again I introduce to you the concept of =3D93time.=3D94 The event
> >>> was over before any interceptors could get to where Flight 93 was.
>
> >> The passengers could have been informed that interceptors
> >> would be on standby for an escort -OR- shootdown.
>
> > They weren=92t. =93Could haves=94 are nice. But =93was=92s=94 rule the day.
>
> Having their cellphone numbers or GTE Airphones, the
> White House could have informed them of imminent escort.
More “could haves.” Irrelevant. They were dead before the “White
House” knew of them.
Again, jazz, escorts mean nothing. The hijackers’ clear intent now
known to the passengers was a suicide crash somewhere likely in DC.
There is no such thing as “escort” to a runway landing in this matter.
> >> Yet you insist on calling those passenger terrorists as "heroes" ?
>
> > I did? When did I do that. I=92ll wait=85.. Still waiting=85..
>
>
> I posed a question.
No, you made a statement dressed up as a question: “Yet you insist on
calling them heroes…” I never once said any such thing, nor hinted at
it.
> Yet you agree that passengers turned terrorist ?
Of course not. They were not, by any sense.
> >> You seem to suggest it was a foregone
> >> conclusion that no escorting by an interceptor was possible,
> >> which implies that you could read the minds of the hijackers
> >> even before the attack was to be consummated.
>
> > Not at all. Again I see logical reasoning skills are not your strong
> > suit. They=92re not even your weak suit. You have no suit!
>
>
> Because you are so skilled at determining what is truth and lie
> it might be the case that you worked in the Department of PreCrime
> for the Hollywood film _Minority_Report_.
Have never seen it. Sorry, I’m just not a slave to pop culture.
> Then you would have
> prescience of the crime in progress before it was being committed.
> Your version appears to presume that nobody on Flight 93 was
> aware of scrambled interceptor jets, nor even their possibility, yet
> scrambling is standard operating procedure for hijacking events.
That’s a lie. It was not. Nor would the passengers be aware of it. Nor
would it have had any effect on their life or death in a suicide
mission. The passengers acted out of self-preservation. “Escorts”
might have been able to arrive in time to watch but would be powerless
to help them avoid death. Only the passengers could do that.
They weren’t trying to crash the plane, they were trying to *prevent*
crashing the plane. They didn’t “sacrifice” themselves; they were
trying NOT to.
A not too subtle difference that nevertheless keeps soaring over your
head.
> >> Why would the hijackers crash an airplane in the middle of
> >> a cow pasture instead of at some target of symbolic significance?
>
> > They had no chance to reach a target once the passengers
> > breached the cockpit.
>
>
> Why didn't the hijackers simply tell the passengers to remain
> calm and wait for the scrambled interceptor jets who would either
> escort them to a safe landing or shoot them down out of the sky?
Why would they do that? And to what end? Pointless.
> >> What was a significance of cellphone conversations with Flight 93
> >> passengers if none of the cellphone conversations led to the
> >> Hollywood hypothesis that passengers turned counter-terrorists
> >> stormed the Flight 93 cockpit, battled with hijackers and crashed
> >> the plane to save our Nation's Proud Historical Image?
>
> > That makes no sense at all. Sorry.
>
>
> Surely the passengers turned counter-terrorists would be
> thinking through all of the implications and ramifications to their
> actions…
That is actually not a very safe assumption. At a time like that, with
the knowledge they had, taking time to think all things through is the
LAST thing that one would assume happened.
> , else such actions would be characterized as insane
> and even more dangerous to life and limb than the hijackers.
Exactly wrong. Retaking the plane is the only choice that leads to
survival. Do nothing=certain death. Retake plane=We may still all die
but we got a shot at surviving.
It was the safer course.
> >> On other airplanes the hijackers are credited with aerobatic miracles
> >> yet you would claim that the Flight 93 pilots knew only how to crash
> >> in a cow pasture, not how to take off and fly like their supposed
> >> comrades-in-arms ?
>
> > Only by kookers. Crashing a plane into a building is not an aerobatic
> > miracle. Another complete mischaracterization of the situation.
> > You=92re really struggling here to hold onto any point at all.
>
>
> Building crashing is not very easy to do, and I invite you to try it.
You first! I think you’ll find it easer than you think!
Again, there were no “aerobatic miracles” on 9/11. Descending,
turning, speeding up, aiming, crashing. Easy.
> I'm not speaking of the computer flight simulator that you train with.
Have never done one. Sorry.
> It's the general consensus that Flight 77's banked turn is well-nigh
> impossible to execute, an aerobatic miracle, or computer-controlled.
That’s false. There’s not only no “general consensus” on that, anyone
who thinks that is a bit nutty; it’s internally inconsistent. If an
onboard computer can do the maneuver, then a pilot can; if the plane
did it, computer or pilot-driven, then it was no miracle.
The maneuver you’re referring to is a diving turn. It’s not that hard.
Hanjour covered a pretty wide area with the turn.
> >> You may posit facts, lay claim to facts, but the -establishment-
> >> of facts does require the rule of law.
>
> > No it doesn=92t. I establish facts every day of my life, as do others.
> > The rule of law is not assisting me.
>
>
> You are asserting them for yourself and claiming them as your
> own. For a context of social discourse, "establish" is by rule of law.
No it isn’t. Not at all. That a court of law helps determine facts in
the matters before it does not mean that all facts are determined in a
court of law.
I lost count, what is that, 13 illogical conclusions?
> >> One might be "not changing" and correct.
>
> > Of course, like me.
>
> Though there was a time prior to your knowledge when you did not know.
Of course. That is how you get there. Once there, you’re there, and
you don’t have to apologize for it.
> >> The reason for the collapses may bear upon the matter of who
> >> were the perpetrators of 9/11. Surely that should have been among
> >> the taskings of the 9/11 Commission.
>
> > You mean to say you=92ve doggy-paddled this far out into the pool
> > without even knowing the basics of 9/11?
>
>
> How does anybody "know" the basics of 9/11 unless they were
> on the inside? Care to turn yourself into the federal authorities?
Holy cow, jazzercizer. You don’t have to be an “insider” to know the
mission of the 9/11 Commission. This proves you’re not following this
at all.
> >> But if they cannot fly it then they cannot retake it.
>
> > That=92s a completely false statement. They can retake it even
> > if not a single one of them can subsequently fly it.
>
>
> With the pilot dead they'll need to ask the hijackers to fly it.
Not at all. Why do you assume none of the passengers knew anything
about flying? Why do you assume they could not use the radio, reengage
the autopilot, set the autoland function? Holy cow. Anything gives
them a chance to survive other than doing nothing and waiting to
crash.
> > As I have pointed out repeatedly, logic is not your strong suit.
> > Better you should stick to innuendo.
>
>
> Hmmm. Perhaps I would think twice about storming the cockpit
> especially if it leads to that euphemistic "nosing into the ground."
As opposed to “nosing into the Pentagon” or “nosing into the WTC
towers” or “nosing into the Capitol dome” or whatever Flight 77’s
target was to be?
You still don’t get it. Storming the cockpit was the *only* way to
have a chance at not “nosing” into anything. That they failed and died
does not mean that they would have survived by *not* storming the
cockpit.
> It seems, however, that you regard actions by passenger-terrorists
> as logical, if not entirely "heroic."
They are obviously not terrorists, sweetcakes. And of course, their
actions were logical.
> >> I'm sorry to harp on logic here.
>
> > BWAHAHAAAAA!! How inappropriate of you on the heels of your glaring
> > errors in logic!! You OUGHT to harp on it, but in remedial sense!!
>
>
> You characterize alternative conclusions by errors in logic, yet
> you are unfamiliar with the procedure by methodological inquiry.
Actually I am; you demonstrate that you are not.
> >> You say they were willing to trade away
> >> the hijacker pilots who can perform aerobatic miracles for their
> >> own piloting deficiencies that lead into erratic plane crashings?
>
> > Who said that? Another straw man! A. There were no =93aerobatic
> > miracles=94 on 9/11. B. Passengers would have no ability to assess
> > the hijackers skills, they only know the hijackers intend to crash and
> > kill them all. C. You violate your own =93lessons=94 by assuming no
> > one on the plane could have taken the yoke. You are aware that
> > these planes can land themselves, are you not?
> It was probably better to crash now in Pennsylvania and get it
> over with than to crash later, or maybe not at all crash later if the
> jet interceptor escorts persuade hijackers into peaceful resolution?
The passengers did not choose to crash at all.
Jet interceptor escorts are of no point in a suicide mission, which
this obviously was.
> This, by the way, is what you appear to allege as your "logic."
> If the planes can land themselves then why weren't the planes
> rendered crashproof?
No such thing.
> Why not usurped by remote controls?
There are no “remote controls.”
> >> This despite the possibility of interceptor escort to safe landing?
>
> > How did the passengers know this? Even if an interceptor was visible
> > outside the window, do explain how this forces suicide hijackers to
> > turn to the nearest runway! Rationalize some more here for us.
>
> The suicide hijackers are made aware that interceptors may
> threaten their mission to strike the target.
That’s OK. They crash it anyway. Which is what they did. The result
shows your conjecture to be misplaced.
> Once it is made known
> to them that their mission will be thwarted a force-of-reason which
> leads them to their target gets interrupted.
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!! Look what happened when the passengers “made known
to them” that their mission would be thwarted. Did they look for the
nearest runway?
Yeesh.
> They land it, instead.
What actually happened shows that you are wrong.
> If the plane is not shot down in Pennsylvania it will be shot down
> en route at another location. Pure logic, but not quite "thinkable."
Thoroughly unthinkable!
> >>>>>> I suppose there are cellphone transcripts, however I am asking
> >>>>>> for those portions of the transcripts which address "knowledge"
> >>>>>> of attacks.
>
> >>>>> Holy cow. Have you ever heard of Google?
>
> >>>> Ever heard of suppression on "google" and unreliability of internet?
>
> >>> Irrelevant to the fact that you can easily obtain the info you want
> >>> through a Google search.
>
> >> I might link to the wrong transcripts.
>
> > Take a chance.
>
>
> The only transcripts I can locate are those with Flight 93 pilots
> and radio control, maybe FAA and/or other towers.
Then you are not very good, which has already been plainly obvious.
> If you know
> how to obtain transcripts of cell-phone conversations and/or the
> GE Airphone conversations, then please let us know.
I already did. Google.
> Otherwise
> your discussion is not following the trail of evidence.
It already followed it. I’m there.
> >>>>>> ... I will travel the road to Flight 93's reassembly site. Can
> >>>>>> you provide an address which I could locate via the roadmap?
>
> >>>>> No. Do some work of your own for once.
>
> >>>> I'm doing some work right now. I asked somebody who claimed
> >>>> to be knowledgeable but instead the guy was full of only flim-flam.
>
> >>> Looking in the mirror?
>
> >> You're not following your own advice, to follow the evidence ...
>
> > Sorry but you=92re wrong. Re-read. Your remark makes no sense.
>
>
> I put the re-read into a looping pattern via computer program
> control. I don't find any documentary evidence of reassembly, so
> I presume that you squirreled it away when you followed that trail.
> If you don't have it, then by your own words you are surrendering.
No, it means you are wrong.
> >>>>>> Why scramble interceptors if they haven't a chance to get close?
> >>>>> It=3D3D92s fitting that you close with the stupidest question yet.
>
> >>>> If Flight 93's passengers were getting cellphone reports then
> >>>> why didn't they just sit tight and wait for jet interceptors to arrive?
>
> >>> Because they didn=3D92t.
>
> >> So they're really not the "heroes" they're made out to be...
>
> > Aren=92t you running out of straw YET? Holy cow, sweetcakes.
> > If you=92d follow the discussion you wouldn=92t make such illogical
> > statements as that.
>
>
> If there were a discussion (i.e. evidentiary trail) to follow then
> it wouldn't be difficult to follow. Good physics can be understood
> by pre-teen children. Your utterances are not very good physics.
On the contrary, they are perfect – unlike your reasoning skills.
Iarnrod
> Cardinal Chunder wrote:
> > Day Brown wrote:
> >> Cardinal Chunder wrote:
> >>> Demental doesn't make claims. He screeches conspiracy but never says
> >>> exactly what he thinks happened instead, let alone provide any
> >>> supporting evidence.
> >> When I count the posts on 911, noting the number who resort to ad
> >> hominum vs the number who cite what they think is relevant data, I see
> >> that those who support the official 911 report resort to ad hominum
> >> far more often than those who ask relevant questions and offer what
> >> they think is relevant photos, video, and engineering analysis.
> >
> > Uhuh. So perhaps you will state specifically and concisely what you
> > think happened on 9/11 if not the conventional explanation with
> > supporting evidence.
> >
> > If you can't do that then don't be surprised when you are called a kook.
> you can tell Vandar too, that I dont claim to know what happened on 911,
> only that the official reports do not add up.
But you won't say in what way they don't add up to you. Take a
chance... tell us what you think doesn't add up... we're here to help!
> I dont claim that the defenders of the official reports are kooks, only
> that they have been suckered.
How so? Give an example instead of just tossing out a general
assertion. If we're so "suckered" help us understand in what?
> And of course, suckers do not want to hear about how they have been
> deceived, ...
Uh, we've been begging you and others here to supply just ONE example,
yet no one will. We "don't want to hear how we've been suckered???"
We're BEGGING you to tell us!!
> and therefore get angry and attack anyone who tries to show
> them how it was done.
Who's getting angry other than the kook brigade? Us shills angry? You
HAVE to be kidding?? This is my daily amusement. I am having belly
laughs here at the kooks' expense. I read this group to *relieve*
myself of daily stress because it's so funny.
Now, where exactly did you see any of the kookers "try to show us how
it was done?"
John P.
> you can tell Vandar too, that I dont claim to know what happened on 911,
> only that the official reports do not add up.
The only "official report" regarding the collapse of the towers is the NIST
report. Are you saying you feel there are errors in the NIST report on the
collapse of the towers? If so, can you state specifics?
BDK
says...
BWHAHAHAAA! So were you suckered into "donating" to the 911 truth
movement? You can admit it, we won't laugh...much.
BDK
BDK
3ec0bc...@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, iar...@yahoo.com says...
Kookers can't seem to be able to tell the difference between laughing
and anger. Is it some form of Autism?
BDK
Seon Ferguson
"John P." <Jo...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:97KdnUxc2dKL_b_V...@comcast.com...
happened?
george
> Did the NIST report actually say how the towers collapsed and what actually
> happened?
You haven't read it then ?
After all this time..
And now you expect some-one to write you a precis...
Iarnrod
> In article <d79cfb2e-2b50-41c2-8857-
> 3ec0bcf7e...@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, iarn...@yahoo.com says...
Delusions of self-importance. Really, they "think" people are "paid"
to sit on usenet and discredit them? I'm sitting here laughing my ass
off and they think I am "angry?"I'd be disappointed if I got up
tomorrow and none of them replied with their kookerisms. It starts my
day off right!
Seon Ferguson
Man its just a question, no need to get huffy.
John P.
>> The only "official report" regarding the collapse of the towers is the
>> NIST report. Are you saying you feel there are errors in the NIST report
>> on the collapse of the towers? If so, can you state specifics?
> Did the NIST report actually say how the towers collapsed and what
> actually happened?
Seon... why are you attempting to have discussions about how and/or why the
towers collapsed and what is or isn't in the "Official Report", if you've
never read the NIST report? It is *required* reading for anyone who on
whatever side of the topic.
The NIST was tasked with investigating the cause of the collapses - thus,
once they determined the cause of the collapse initiation, they were done. I
imagine they were beyond incredulous when they first heard someone suggest
they might have investigated why the towers continued to collapse after the
upper portions of the buildings fell down onto the floors below.
Let me comment on your asking if they reported on "what actually happened".
NIST, as well as any investigator will tell you the evidence never tells you
what "actually" happened, but rather, it gives you enough pieces of the
puzzle to determine what most likely happened. You come up with the right
answer, but the route you took to get there might be slightly different from
the actual route taken. NIST is clear on this in their report.
To clarify further, as you don't always seem to understand things easily -
(this is a made up example) - Perhaps NIST determined beam #87 failed before
beam #92. Maybe they're wrong on that detail. Maybe beam #92 failed first.
In the end, the result is the same, both beams failed.
Seon Ferguson
what's the point of a report if it wont even tell you the cause? I do find
it interesting that it didn't actually say how the towers collapsed.
Yeah I dont get a lot of stuff. you can blame that on disinformation.
BDK
01.iinet.net.au>, seo...@gmail.com says...
Or just a lack of reading the thing you're talking about?
BDK
-
>>>>> "-" wrote:
>>>>>> The Partin-presumed ordinary bomb was a preliminary hypothesis.
>>>> larnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> And it was incorrect. Known now to be incorrect.
>>>>> Yet he still uses it. Hmmmm. And he came to that
>>>>> conclusion within =3D3D93hours=3D3D94 of the even=3Dt.
>>> "-" wrote:
>>>> Since you say "he still uses it" do you have the date and/or
>>>> reference of him when he last used it?
>> Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> No.
> "-" wrote:
>> When using the present tense, you were there not following
>> where the evidence leads. You -fabricated- that assertion.
Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That=92s a lie that exposes your lack of reasoning skills. It=92s a
> true assertion, whether or not I possess the date that he last used it.
Since it's a "true assertion" then you won't mind supplying
the most recent cite that you have available. In that case you
would need to say "he used it recently" and not "he still uses it."
Remember that "whoever asserts must prove."
>>>> Is there any record of an evidentiary confrontation?
>>> Yes.
>> Because you did not supply the URL and cite you
>> must be surrendering already.
> Another completely illogical conclusion on your part.
Appears to follow from your earlier premise to me that if I do
not comply with a request for evidence then I am surrendering.
>>>> Why has nobody apprised him recently?
>>> He=3D92s a kook.
>> Therefore, retired military generals turn into kooks ?
>> What happens to other people retired from the military ?
> The *third* illogical conclusion in your first three statements.
> Are you going for the record?
Seems to me that a retired military general already brings
substantial anti-kook credentials. What were your credentials, btw?
>>>> Crucial to this determination is whether he was given an opportunity
>>>> to review alternative conclusions and what he has to say by way
>>>> of feedback. Lacking such conferencing, it is doubtful whether
>>>> anybody involved can lay claim to an open mind.
>>> Well, that means I can and he can=3D92t.
>>> Denying facts is not an open mind; it=3D92s a sick one.
>> Can't have your cake and eat it too. You hold to only one
>> possible conclusion and your mind is closed.
> That=92s four!
Do you hold to another possible conclusion? Then state it.
>> If you had learned that McVeigh's testimony was suspect then
>> you would not have wasted your time and ours by trying to cite it.
> Wasn=92t a waste of time; his info led directly to the discovery of the
> corroborating documentary evidence.
Yes, why was it necessary to supply independent corroborating
documentary evidence?
>> As for Flight 93 you have surrendered the point concerning where
>> we may find the reassembly, when and where it was conducted,
>> and who had conducted it. You have no documention of it. So
>> you have been following your dick and not the trail of evidence.
> I don=92t have a =93dick,=94 moron. That=92s five!
Well, "dick" also means detective or private investigator.
>>>> For the "plain fact" of Flight 93's "no shootdown" status you
>>>> perhaps refer to a reassembly though without any documentation
>>>> for it, no idea of who conducted analysis of the reassembly, and
>>>> no idea where it was done nor where reassembly is located now.
>>> This is merely evidence that you have not been following this
>>> discussion; that is a complete mischaracterization of it.
>> According to the FBI's reply to Mr. Monaghan's FOIA request,
>> there has been no document release of any supposed reassembly.
> And another complete mischaracterization of the discussion. You do
> like to conflate unrelated things, don=92t you!
If therer's no document release then there's no public knowledge
about the investigative results from a Flight 93 reassembly. No proof
one way or the other concerning the hypothesis of a shootdown.
>>>> ... what you might term "plain fact" is hardly plain at all.
>>> No. It=3D92s plain.
>> Example of your denial of fact, and utter "anti-kook" kookery.
> Sorry but it=92s not. It is plain.
So is the rain in Spain? No "plain facts" from any Flight 93
reassembly. No documents to find via "google" searches.
>>>> And, with all of the OKC researchers, there is more than a decade
>>>> of opportunities for Partin to be confronted with audio-visual evidence
>>>> of that confrontation. So nobody has aggressively taken him to task?
>>> Don=3D92t know, don=3D92t care.
>> Your admission of ignorance, lack of rigor w/r/t investigative method.
>> Perhaps your surrender writ with cold blood on that thrown towel...
> No, simply what it is=85 Partin is of no consequence because he is
> grossly in error. Whether others choose to confront him on it is not
> my concern.
What an admission ! Yes, Partin is of no consequence because
testimony of alleged shootdown was cited from Col. Donn de Grand-Pre.
Suspected that you were a slow learner. You're not so slow after all !
>> I do not surround myself with Partin. I posted an article which=
>> cited from Partin, concerning Col. Donn de Grand-Pre. You tried
>> to discredit everything Partin does/says by reference to his sketchy
>> speculations.
> That=92s a lie. I discredited is OKC statements. Those ARE the sketchy
> statements. I don=92t discredit him WITH them, I proved THEM wrong.
In other words, while the Subject: line here specifically says
"Flight 93" you proceeded to discuss OKC. Rather irrelevant, then?
>>>> He might be wrong about the bomb composition, but it is anyone's
>>>> guess what the actual explosive power of the bomb amounted to.
>>> Not really. It=3D92s completely calculable in fact.
>> Can you calculate the volume of this egg? Oops, you got it wrong!
> We can calculate the actual explosive power of the bomb. If you doubt
> that, then you are not very smart.
Granted some assumptions you can calculate. But if you work
backwards from the effect you are applying inference, not deduction.
> I don=92t have to confront Partin to conduct a thorough investigation,
> since he has nothing of value to the investigation. In fact, Partin
> has merely taken what he mistakenly thinks is data from the
> investigation and misanalysed it.
Since we agree that Partin is of no consequence, for purposes of
our topical discussion concerning Flight 93, you may drop the point.
>>>> Interpretation of why McVeigh drove away without a license
>>>> plate, or with expired tabs, or aroused attentions of the police?
>>> Unrelated to the fact that there were no other bombs in the building.
>> Related to the fact that somebody alleged to be so calculating
>> about bomb explosions would neglect to have a license plate.
> That hardly follows at all.
> Point of fact: McVeigh did not NEGLECT to have a license plate;
> he purposely removed it and left it in the storage shed.
Was any explanation for McVeigh's bizarre behavior brought
forward during the course of his trial? That he sought to divert
attention away from other bombs in the building, and onto himself?
>>>>>> You claimed "surrender" outright without obtaining a signature
>>>>>> document or treaty indicating compliance and the specific terms.
>>>>> So? You surrendered. You even wrote it.
>>>> Wrote what? Do you now parade your standards for research?
>>>> If so, which you got wrong when something was in front of your
>>>> face, what chance do you have with independent objective research?
>>> I wasn=3D92t wrong. You surrendered =3D96 you =3D93forfeited=3D94
>>> the po=int. It=3D92s upthread. Really it is. You can stop now.
>> I supplied "google" cites. How does that forfeit a point?
> Actually you supplied nothing. Now you=92re fabricating your story.
Hmmm. Perhaps in your haste you overlooked a crucial post:
>>>> Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 23:38:35 GMT
>>>> Results 1 - 100 of about 635 for multiple explosions
>>>> "okc bombing". (0.40 seconds)
>> [ ... ] There is a "conspiracy" genre
>> in the literature, and Hollywood, forming grist for the writer's mill.
>> Be known as a time-waster and you'll be relegated to the dustbin.
> You=92re in there now, as a matter of fact!
I'm also in a number of other cross-posted newsgroups ...
>>>> Being wrong on a particular point does not suffice to reduce
>>>> somebody's credibility to zero.
>>> No, being wrong on the ENTIRE argument does.
>> You invoked OKC when the remark concerned Flight 93.
> Same would apply.
You cited no evidence concerning Gen. Partin from Flight 93.
>> Having their cellphone numbers or GTE Airphones, the
>> White House could have informed them of imminent escort.
> More =93could haves.=94 Irrelevant. They were dead before the
> =93White House=94 knew of them.
> Again, jazz, escorts mean nothing. The hijackers=92 clear intent now
> known to the passengers was a suicide crash somewhere likely in DC.
> There is no such thing as =93escort=94 to a runway landing in this matter.
By "White House" I mean President or Vice-President, wherever
they are. Strange that interceptor jets were scrambled and yet the
President or Vice-President were not kept informed. That's SOP ?
As for "escort" perhaps there is an override signal for controlling
aircraft remotely by computer and forcing it into a safe landing.
>>>> Yet you insist on calling those passenger terrorists as "heroes" ?
>>> I did? When did I do that. I=3D92ll wait=3D85.. Still waiting=3D85..
>> I posed a question.
> No, you made a statement dressed up as a question: =93Yet you
> insist on calling them heroes=85=94 I never once said any such
> thing, nor hinted at it.
Fine. So the passenger terrorists were acting irrationally?
>> Yet you agree that passengers turned terrorist ?
> Of course not. They were not, by any sense.
If any other passenger on that aircraft disagreed with their
"let's roll" plan of action, then they were behaving as terrorists.
Remember that terrorism needs only be activity by any agency
or group, not state-sanctioned, that places life or limb into more
jeopardy, or engenders unnecessary fear uncertainty and doubt.
>> Your version appears to presume that nobody on Flight 93 was
>> aware of scrambled interceptor jets, nor even their possibility, yet
>> scrambling is standard operating procedure for hijacking events.
> That=92s a lie. It was not. Nor would the passengers be aware of it.
> Nor would it have had any effect on their life or death in a suicide
> mission. The passengers acted out of self-preservation. =93Escorts=94
> might have been able to arrive in time to watch but would be powerless
> to help them avoid death. Only the passengers could do that.
Yet there was already a White House manual prescribing for
civilian airliner shootdown in the contingency of terrorist hijacking.
A published SOP predating 9/11 events by more than ten years.
> They weren=92t trying to crash the plane, they were trying to
> *prevent* crashing the plane. They didn=92t =93sacrifice=94
> themselves; they were trying NOT to.
The hijackers did not plan to crash the plane in Pennsylvania.
Do you have any evidence that, among the passenger terrorists,
any of them had flight training or knew how to fly a jumbo jet ?
Once Flight 93's pilot was dead, only the hijackers could fly it.
Perhaps it was the result of killing the hijacker pilot that Flight 93
was bereft of anybody who know how to fly that big commercial
jetliner. The plane went out of control by unskilled amateurs,
or perhaps nobody at the helm.
>>>> Why would the hijackers crash an airplane in the middle of
>>>> a cow pasture instead of at some target of symbolic significance?
>>> They had no chance to reach a target once the passengers
>>> breached the cockpit.
>> Why didn't the hijackers simply tell the passengers to remain
>> calm and wait for the scrambled interceptor jets who would either
>> escort them to a safe landing or shoot them down out of the sky?
> Why would they do that? And to what end? Pointless.
Through dialogue might have calmed the passengers, impressed
upon them the mercy and grace of Allah, and converted them to Islam.
>> Surely the passengers turned counter-terrorists would be
>> thinking through all of the implications and ramifications to their
>> actions, else such actions would be characterized as insane
>> and even more dangerous to life and limb than the hijackers.
> That is actually not a very safe assumption. At a time like that, with
> the knowledge they had, taking time to think all things through is the
> LAST thing that one would assume happened.
>
> Exactly wrong. Retaking the plane is the only choice that leads to
> survival. Do nothing=3Dcertain death. Retake plane=3DWe may
> still all die but we got a shot at surviving. It was the safer course.
It is "panic mode" which asserts that one is cornered and has
no other alternatives. Also, when persuaded that there is only one
possible conclusion then there is a closed mind, not an open mind.
You're saying, effectively, the thesis concerns Flight 93 "let's roll"
passengers who acted impulsively, panic mode, with closed minds.
Consider also that there is more opportunity for GTE Airphone
conversations, alleged cellphone conversations, with loved ones
if the passengers can purchase more airtime in Flight 93 prior to
immolation, or an escorted safe landing, than by cow pasture crash.
Prior to storming the cockpit do you suppose it is a reasonable and
rational question to ask who flies the aircraft once all pilots are dead?
>>> ... Crashing a plane into a building is not an aerobatic
>>> miracle. Another complete mischaracterization of the situation.
>>> You=3D92re really struggling here to hold onto any point at all.
>> Building crashing is not very easy to do, and I invite you to try it.
> You first! I think you=92ll find it easer than you think!
I tried it but missed. Now it's your turn.
> Again, there were no =93aerobatic miracles=94 on 9/11. Descending,
> turning, speeding up, aiming, crashing. Easy.
Well, that's not the general consensus concering that tight turn
and descent executed by Flight 77 prior to crashing into the Pentagon.
>> It's the general consensus that Flight 77's banked turn is well-nigh
>> impossible to execute, an aerobatic miracle, or computer-controlled.
> That=92s false. There=92s not only no =93general consensus=94 on
> that, anyon=e who thinks that is a bit nutty; it=92s internally inconsistent.
> If an onboard computer can do the maneuver, then a pilot can; if the
> plane did it, computer or pilot-driven, then it was no miracle.
> The maneuver you=92re referring to is a diving turn. It=92s not that
> hard. Hanjour covered a pretty wide area with the turn.
Positing that Hanjour programmed Flight 77's onboard computer
for descent with tight turn introduces some other quizzical anomalies.
Not the sort of thing taught in flight school. And there are passwords
for the computer which dead pilots cannot reveal.
>>>> You may posit facts, lay claim to facts, but the -establishment-
>>>> of facts does require the rule of law.
>>> No it doesn=3D92t. I establish facts every day of my life, as do
>>> others.= The rule of law is not assisting me.
>> You are asserting them for yourself and claiming them as your
>> own. For a context of social discourse, "establish" is by rule of law.
> No it isn=92t. Not at all. That a court of law helps determine facts in
> the matters before it does not mean that all facts are determined in a
> court of law. I lost count, what is that, 13 illogical conclusions?
Well, you were correct that the rule of law does not assist you.
If you hold your own court, with different procedural rules, then you
assert a different sort of law. Nevertheless, it's still a court of law.
>>>> One might be "not changing" and correct.
>>> Of course, like me.
>> Though there was a time prior to your knowledge when you did not know.
> Of course. That is how you get there. Once there, you=92re there, and
> you don=92t have to apologize for it.
How you got there involved changing.
>>>> The reason for the collapses may bear upon the matter of who
>>>> were the perpetrators of 9/11. Surely that should have been among
>>>> the taskings of the 9/11 Commission.
>>> You mean to say you=3D92ve doggy-paddled this far out into the pool
>>> without even knowing the basics of 9/11?
>> How does anybody "know" the basics of 9/11 unless they were
>> on the inside? Care to turn yourself into the federal authorities?
> Holy cow, jazzercizer. You don=92t have to be an =93insider=94
> to know the mission of the 9/11 Commission. This proves you=92re
> not following this at all.
My research discovered that the "mission of the Commission"
was to Whitewash 9/11 by ignoring key and critical questions and,
populated by neo-con shills, recommend legislative changes from
the Bush Administration. I don't find my own questions addressed
or answered by procedures of the Commission. The report they
generated completely skipped over crucial methodological inquiry.
>>>> But if they cannot fly it then they cannot retake it.
>>> That=3D92s a completely false statement. They can retake it even
>>> if not a single one of them can subsequently fly it.
>> With the pilot dead they'll need to ask the hijackers to fly it.
> Not at all. Why do you assume none of the passengers knew anything
> about flying? Why do you assume they could not use the radio,
> reengage the autopilot, set the autoland function? Holy cow.
> Anything gives them a chance to survive other than doing nothing
> and waiting to crash.
In storming the cockpit perhaps the passengers did not
anticipate that the hijacker pilot would place Flight 93 into an
unrecoverable maneuver prior to surrendering the controls.
Lack of anticipation, by the way, is an indicator of gross insanity.
>>> As I have pointed out repeatedly, logic is not your strong suit.
>>> Better you should stick to innuendo.
>> Hmmm. Perhaps I would think twice about storming the cockpit
>> especially if it leads to that euphemistic "nosing into the ground."
> As opposed to =93nosing into the Pentagon=94 or =93nosing
> into the WTC towers=94 or =93nosing into the Capitol dome=94
> or whatever Flight 77=92s target was to be?
Flight 93 was not destined for a target already struck. As for
Capitol Dome, White House, Mall, or Washington Monument,
there are far too many sympathizers to allow those hijackers the
pleasure of messing up Washington, D.C. Flight 77 went for the
Pentagon. We are discussing Flight 93, not Flight 77. See the
Subject: line?
> You still don=92t get it. Storming the cockpit was the *only*
> way to have a chance at not =93nosing=94 into anything. That
> they failed and died does not mean that they would have survived
> by *not* storming the cockpit.
When there's only one conclusion there's not an open mind.
Even if they would not survive by not storming the cockpit at least
they would live longer to make those GTE Airphone (and/or alleged
cellphone calls) to loved ones, to officials and to authorities. Seems
strange that clever hijackers would not disable GTE Airphones once
taking control of the airplane.
>> It seems, however, that you regard actions by passenger-terrorists
>> as logical, if not entirely "heroic."
> They are obviously not terrorists, sweetcakes. And of course, their
> actions were logical.
You consider earlier death more logical than delayed death?
>> You characterize alternative conclusions by errors in logic, yet
>> you are unfamiliar with the procedure by methodological inquiry.
> Actually I am; you demonstrate that you are not.
By focusing upon conclusions, and adjudicating all others for
"kookery" based only upon conclusions, you ignore methodology.
>>>> You say they were willing to trade away
>>>> the hijacker pilots who can perform aerobatic miracles for their
>>>> own piloting deficiencies that lead into erratic plane crashings?
>>> Who said that? Another straw man! A. There were no =3D93aerobatic
>>> miracles=3D94 on 9/11. B. Passengers would have no ability to assess
>>> the hijackers skills, they only know the hijackers intend to crash and
>>> kill them all. C. You violate your own =3D93lessons=3D94 by assuming
>>> no one on the plane could have taken the yoke. You are aware that
>>> these planes can land themselves, are you not?
>> It was probably better to crash now in Pennsylvania and get it
>> over with than to crash later, or maybe not at all crash later if the=
>> jet interceptor escorts persuade hijackers into peaceful resolution?
> The passengers did not choose to crash at all.
Well, planes cannot land themselves unless placed under
remote control, or by computer control. If passenger terrorists
did not know how to accomplish either means then they chose
a suicide course. Choosing immediate suicide is less logical
than chosing to be a victim by delayed homicide. Perhaps radio
was destroyed as well. Official accounts say bullets were fired.
If, as you claim, somebody on Flight 93 could fly the airplane
then you should be able to tell us who that is by inspection of
the passenger manifest cross-referenced by individual names
who are graduates of flight school or hold a commercial license.
If you do not follow the trail of evidence you are bound for kookery.
> Jet interceptor escorts are of no point in a suicide mission,
> which this obviously was.
Jet interceptor escorts might code for radio remote override
once given authorization by the White House command-central.
>> This, by the way, is what you appear to allege as your "logic."
>> If the planes can land themselves then why weren't the planes
>> rendered crashproof?
> No such thing.
Simple. The plane is hijacked. Ground control sends out
the override code to disable manual controls. Airplane is flown
by remote control. Hijackers take a snooze until touch-down at
the airport, arrest, incarceration & trial, and more punishments.
>> Why not usurped by remote controls?
> There are no =93remote controls.=94
Again trying to prove a negative? Will wonders never cease !
>>>> This despite the possibility of interceptor escort to safe landing?
>>> How did the passengers know this? Even if an interceptor was visible
>>> outside the window, do explain how this forces suicide hijackers to
>>> turn to the nearest runway! Rationalize some more here for us.
>> The suicide hijackers are made aware that interceptors may
>> threaten their mission to strike the target.
> That=92s OK. They crash it anyway. Which is what they did.
> The result shows your conjecture to be misplaced.
You assert that hijackers crashed into a cow pasture. Yet the
cow pasture is not an important symbol of national significance.
>> Once it is made known
>> to them that their mission will be thwarted a force-of-reason which
>> leads them to their target gets interrupted.
> BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!! Look what happened when the
> passengers =93made known to them=94 that their mission would
> be thwarted. Did they look for the nearest runway? Yeesh.
I assume the passenger terrorists were "successful." They
stormed the cockpit with ensuing scuffle, overwhelmed hijackers
and hijacker pilot, discovered that the commercial pilot was dead,
found themselves without any knowledge of how to fly an airplane,
couldn't decipher the controls, helplessly lost control of the plane
and crashed themselves into a cow pasture. Big success story, eh?
So their "solution" would have been to put the hijacker pilot
back into the pilot's seat, exit the cockpit, grab some headphones
and go back to watching the inflight movies.
>> They land it, instead.
> What actually happened shows that you are wrong.
What actually happened is anybody's guess. I'm surprised that
you would claim knowledge of what actually happened. Can you
point to any released documentation of what -actually- happened?
I mean, of course, documentation entirely absent of all hypotheses.
Have you taken leave of your senses without any trail of evidence?
>> If the plane is not shot down in Pennsylvania it will be shot down
>> en route at another location. Pure logic, but not quite "thinkable."
> Thoroughly unthinkable!
We're thinking it now, as I speak.
>> The only transcripts I can locate are those with Flight 93 pilots
>> and radio control, maybe FAA and/or other towers.
> Then you are not very good, which has already been plainly obvious.
I am locating supposed transcripts but I cannot vouch for their
authenticity. There is much doubt concerning alleged cellphone
conversations above 5,000 ft. altitude. Experts estimate a 1-in-100
chance of cellphone connection, with dropout in about 2 seconds.
Others had tried using cellphones above 5,000 ft. without success.
>> If you know
>> how to obtain transcripts of cell-phone conversations and/or the
>> GTE Airphone conversations, then please let us know.
> I already did. Google.
They you must have also found ---
http://www.physforum.com/9-11-flight-93-plane-phone-calls_3563.html
http://911review.org/brad.com/sept11_cell-phones/illinois_flight-93.html
http://911review.org/Wiki/flight_93_movie.html
http://www.flight93crash.com/
http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_heroes.html
which are notoriously at the top of "google" search.
>> Otherwise your discussion is not following the trail of evidence.
> It already followed it. I=92m there.
It appears that nobody else is there, too.
>> [...] I don't find any documentary evidence of reassembly, so
>> I presume that you squirreled it away when you followed that trail.
>> If you don't have it, then by your own words you are surrendering.
> No, it means you are wrong.
So you don't have that documentary evidence, nor any URL.
Not following the trail of evidence, but intstead opting for kookery.
>> If there were a discussion (i.e. evidentiary trail) to follow then
>> it wouldn't be difficult to follow. Good physics can be understood
>> by pre-teen children. Your utterances are not very good physics.
> On the contrary, they are perfect =96 unlike your reasoning skills.
Perfectly what? Utterly perfect kookery: not by evidence.
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------------------------
So How Were Those 911 Cell Calls Made?
http://www.rense.com/general69/calls.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
Al Dykes
There is lots of evidence at Shanksville that say that the plane hit
the ground, intact. For starters, no gun or missile carried by an
F-16 can demolish a 757/767 in the air. If the figher shoots out an
engine, a 757 will continue to fly, at last for a while. Any
explosions or impacts are recorded on the black boxes, both of which
have been recovered. If part of the aircraft is damaged, that
information is stored in the black boxes, also. Anything said in the
cockpit ("they are shooting at us!") is recorded.
And what did they do with it after it landed.
None of the serial-numbered parts can ever be seen again for reasons
that k00ks are clueless about, and all the important parts of an
airplane have serial numbers.
Even of a k00k says "they melted it down", disposing of 140 tons of
aircraft that way is involves lots of people and is unusual enough
that you would just have to shoot them, afterwards.
1,200 first responders [9] from 74 local, state and federal agencies
and organizations worked at Shanksville. They would be very suprised
to hear that that all the roughly 130 tons of airplane parts they
found were not Flight 93. Those people would all have to be part of
any conspiracy.
95% of the aircraft See [3] that was Flight 93 was recovered in the
hole. [2] This included both black boxes which have been analyzed [4]
and the DNA of all the people that boarded Flight 93 in Boston have
been identified by DNA, jewlery, luggage, and dental records. [1].
At Shanksville over 1,100 people from 74 agencies and organizations
worked at the scene. [6] They all waould have to be part of a
cover-up.
The data in the black boxes is consistant with all other evidence. [4].
All the data in the FAA has is consistent with the records in the
black boxes and with the Telephone Company's cell phone and all the
other evidence we have, some of which is below.
All the evidence says that United Airlines Boeing 757-222, registered
N591UA, took off from Boston on the morning of 9/11 and crashed in
Shanksville.
There is no evidence that it was shot down. Any bullet/missile impact
would be recorded in the black box or in the cockpit voice recorder
("Oh sh*t, Mohammed, they are shooting at us")
Iarnrod
> >>>>> "-" wrote:
> >>>>>> The Partin-presumed ordinary bomb was a preliminary hypothesis.
> >>>> larnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> And it was incorrect. Known now to be incorrect.
> >>>>> Yet he still uses it. Hmmmm. And he came to that
> >>>>> conclusion within =3D3D93hours=3D3D94 of the even=3Dt.
> >>> "-" wrote:
> >>>> Since you say "he still uses it" do you have the date and/or
> >>>> reference of him when he last used it?
> >>> No.
> > "-" wrote:
> >> When using the present tense, you were there not following
> >> where the evidence leads. You -fabricated- that assertion.
> > That=92s a lie that exposes your lack of reasoning skills. It=92s a
> > true assertion, whether or not I possess the date that he last used it.
>
> Since it's a "true assertion" then you won't mind supplying
> the most recent cite that you have available.
Yes I would since you’re an argumentative moron. You’ve shown no
inclination to date to educate yourself on the facts. You seem
incapable of proper reasoning and constantly conflate unrelated
premises into a fallacious argument.
-
Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [ ... ]. You=92ve shown no
> inclination to date to educate yourself on the facts. You seem
> incapable of proper reasoning and constantly conflate unrelated
> premises into a fallacious argument.
This isn't a private conversation via email. You're posting to
public newsgroups, with lots of lurkers. Any laziness on your part
to present crucial evidence also denies to countless thousands of
lurkers an opportunity to show off those alleged professorial skills.
Moreover, the unblinking archives will continue to cast bright
lights upon all future references to this discussion. No place to run.
- regards
- jb
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Airlines Flight 93 - Phone calls - Debunk911myths
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/United_Airlines_Flight_93_-_Phone_calls
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John P.
> Well as long as NIST at least explained the cause of the collapse. I mean
> what's the point of a report if it wont even tell you the cause? I do find
> it interesting that it didn't actually say how the towers collapsed.
> Yeah I dont get a lot of stuff. you can blame that on disinformation.
Very simple and basic physics explains why the towers continued to collapse
after collapse initiation. The structure of the buildings was designed to
support a certain static load (the weight of the structure itself as well as
the anticipated contents, including people). There was a designed in safety
factor of 5 times that calculated load. One relevant point here is that when
the buildings were designed, the idea offices having tons of computer
equipment was unheard of. There were entire trading floors with massive
amounts of equipment in the towers. It is likely that the weight of the
contents of the building were either very near, or possibly slightly more
than the original design load (although, they didn't approach the 5x load
capacity).
So, if the falling upper portions had presented something less than 5 times
the design load, the collapse may have stopped there. The reality is, they
presented a dynamic load which was something in the area of 32 times the
design load. There are no circumstances under which one would reasonably
believe the buildings could have done anything other than collapse under
these conditions.
The unanswered question was why the collapse initiated in the first place.
That is what the NIST investigated & answered.
-
The reassembly? Where was it conducted? Who conducted it?
Where are -those- documents, photos, interpretations and analysis?
Where might we see the reassembly today? Many types of missiles...
Lack of a remark does not establish lack of a missile. Your evidentiary
chunks, while extensive, comprise less than 0.01% of the evidentiary
materials & questions demanding review by means of public scrutiny.
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------------------------------------
george
> The reassembly? Where was it conducted? Who conducted it?
> Where are -those- documents, photos, interpretations and analysis?
> Where might we see the reassembly today? Many types of missiles...
> Lack of a remark does not establish lack of a missile. Your evidentiary
> chunks, while extensive, comprise less than 0.01% of the evidentiary
> materials & questions demanding review by means of public scrutiny.
>
Riiiight.
Your bot isn't tuned properly and do try to get it to post at the
bottom of the message pile
Al Dykes
- <jazze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The reassembly? Where was it conducted? Who conducted it?
> Where are -those- documents, photos, interpretations and analysis?
> Where might we see the reassembly today? Many types of missiles...
There is no evidence that any gun or missile hit the 757 structure.
Impact or damage would be recorded in the data recorders. Both data
recorders were recovered and show no such thing.
Here is just some of the evidence thats the shows that United Airlines
Boeing 757-222, registered N591UA took off from Newark on the morning
of 9/11 and crashed in Shanksville
.
[1] DNA for all passangers crew found and identified
Seon Ferguson
"BDK" <B...@kookmagnet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.228cd9d1c...@news.buckeye-express.com...
collapsed?
Seon Ferguson
Its obvious to me how they collapsed-kind of along the lines you described
(just not bombs or part of a conspiracy...unless you count a Muslim one) I
just find it odd that no official reports have described how the towers
collapsed (especially building 7) when it is so obvious. The planes, debris,
flammable material etc.
>
>
John P.
>> Or just a lack of reading the thing you're talking about?
> Whats the point of reading it if it doesnt tell you how the buildings
> collapsed?
How do you know what it tells you if you don't read it?
John P.
>> The unanswered question was why the collapse initiated in the first
>> place. That is what the NIST investigated & answered.
> Its obvious to me how they collapsed-kind of along the lines you described
> (just not bombs or part of a conspiracy...unless you count a Muslim one) I
> just find it odd that no official reports have described how the towers
> collapsed (especially building 7) when it is so obvious. The planes,
> debris, flammable material etc.
The NIST report titled "The Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers"
explains how the towers collapsed.
Government Shill #2
What's the point of arguing about whether it's right or wrong if you haven't
read it?
Oh... and why is *how* they collapsed important?
Shill #2
--
I am not young enough to know everything.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
Government Shill #2
Why is *how* important? The how of the collapse comes after the cause. How is
inevitable and non changeable. *Why*, on the other hand, describes the causes of
the collapse and investigates ways that this might be prevented in the future.
Wouldn't you rather see an investigation report into the *Why* of 119? How about
the NIST report? Doesn't that describe why? NIST are in the process of writing a
report on why WTC 7 collapsed. You must be patient. How about the 911 Commission
Report does that describe why?
>The planes, debris, flammable material etc.
Aren't these all part of why the buildings collapsed? Aren't these factors all
covered in the NIST report? Try reading it! You will probably find that it does
cover these exact things.
Seon Ferguson
"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tdt724p9d16n9vu4c...@4ax.com...
investigation into how the towers collapsed since no one has anything to
hide (except for the terrorists...who are dead)
Seon Ferguson
Seon Ferguson
Seon Ferguson
place blame.
>>The planes, debris, flammable material etc.
>
> Aren't these all part of why the buildings collapsed? Aren't these factors
> all
> covered in the NIST report? Try reading it! You will probably find that it
> does
> cover these exact things.
>
Actually I think I read the report on building 7 thats what made me realise
WTC7 had flaible material in the first place.
Government Shill #2
Why? What does how they fell tell you anything?
They fell down. Happy now?
Government Shill #2
No.
>I guess
Yes.
>you'd just think there'd be at least one offical
>investigation into how the towers collapsed
Why? Nothing can be changed by exploring how they fell. Didn't I just write
this? Deja vu. If an investigation finds out why they fell changes can be made.
Worthwhile consequences result. People lives and property can be saved next
time, possibly.
How they collapsed might be interesting, but essentially useless.
Shill #2
--
I am not young enough to know everything.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
since no one has anything to
Seon Ferguson
pretty obvious, a plane hit them.
however just saying they fell down doesnt cut it for me. Just like saying we
were born happy now wouldnt cut it for me.
Government Shill #2
You still haven't told me why anyone would give a shit how they fell. What is
the reason to spend a million dollars studying a building falling?
Seon Ferguson
and it would help put an end to the numerous conspiracy theories. Bombs,
thermadite, Jews, aliens etc
Government Shill #2
Yes.
> people do have the right to know how exactly they fell
Why?
What "right" is this?
>and it would help put an end to the numerous conspiracy theories. Bombs,
>thermadite, Jews, aliens etc
It wouldn't. Nothing will ever satisfy the truthers out there.
BDK
gov....@gmail.com says...
Seon isn't far gone enough, yet, but he seems to be working his way
there, to know how obsessed the 911 kookers are. No amount of evidence
would ever be enough to snap them back to the sane side, they are out
and out religious fanatics. Maybe a few of them will wake up, and exit
the "Church", but most will be lifelong members.
More fun for us. I wish I was Seon's age, so I would be here 40-50 years
from now, reading kooks claims that the "The lid's gonna blow off the
911 conspiracy soon". That's how pitiful they are, but just thinking
about those poor bastards doing it cracks me up.
The kooker comedy showcase never stops.
What a wonderful world.
BDK
Iarnrod
> Iarnrod<iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > [ ... ]. You=92ve shown no
> > inclination to date to educate yourself on the facts. You seem
> > incapable of proper reasoning and constantly conflate unrelated
> > premises into a fallacious argument.
>
> This isn't a private conversation via email.
Who thought it was? Why are you even saying that?
> You're posting to public newsgroups, with lots of lurkers.
I know that.
> Any laziness on your part
> to present crucial evidence also denies to countless thousands of
> lurkers an opportunity to show off those alleged professorial skills.
That’s not my job, sweetheart. It’s been done, and if lurkers want to
know more, it’s not my job to come in every single day and repeat all
of the complete proofs of the 9/11 attacks and debunk repeatedly the
disproved nonsense that the kookers spread. You’ll just have to live
with it.
> Moreover, the unblinking archives will continue to cast bright
> lights upon all future references to this discussion. No place to run.
Bingo, lambie pie. The unblinking archives contain all that’s been
said, so there’s no need to continually repeat it.
Got any other self-defeating arguments?
<chuckle>
Day Brown
> Delusions of self-importance. Really, they "think" people are "paid"
> to sit on usenet and discredit them? I'm sitting here laughing my ass
> off and they think I am "angry?"I'd be disappointed if I got up
> tomorrow and none of them replied with their kookerisms. It starts my
> day off right!
I dont expect you to read every post I put up on 911. I have many times
been quite specific about the ways the 911 report does not add up.
Drop concrete floors 1000 feet. Concrete has been turned to rubble by
warfare and structural collapse. But it has not been turned to so much
dust that it affected the health of thousands of people across several
square miles of area.
Why is there so much dust? I've seen reports on the dust which show
microspheres of what had been molten metal as well as spectroscopic
analysis that has the same profile as thermite.
If the planes caused a pancake collapse, there'd be rubble, but not
nearly that much dust.
Read the studies on group think if you have the attention span. Marvel
at the degree to which people will actually not believe their own eyes
in order to go along with what they think is the group opinion. In this
case, the group opinion was crafted by corporate mass media hacks, and
they are quite good at it. I saw what the did to Barry Goldwater in 64.
People thot I was a kook then, just like you do now, for not believing
what the corporate mass media said.
Day Brown
> "Day Brown" <dayb...@hughes.net> wrote in a message
>
>> you can tell Vandar too, that I dont claim to know what happened on 911,
>> only that the official reports do not add up.
>
> The only "official report" regarding the collapse of the towers is the NIST
> report. Are you saying you feel there are errors in the NIST report on the
> collapse of the towers? If so, can you state specifics?
commissioners say they know they were lied to. But I've not seen any
trial, much less even indictments, for perjury.
The NIST report has no explanation for why WTC 7 fell. I've seen a
closeup photo posted of orange/yellow hot steel taken at the 911 site.
You cant get steel that color without, at the very least, providing
pressurized oxygen. Acetylene wont even do it, much less jet fuel.
I saw a photo of the Gordon Ross report, taken from across the river;
you can see the towers sticking up above the dust cloud. You can also
see the core columns of a tower still standing after the floors
pancaked. Why did they fall down? They no longer had the load of the
floors? And when they did, why didnt they go over like long flagpoles
rather than broken into convenient 30 foot chunks?
You can soften steel burning kerosene or jetfuel, and make it bend, but
that dont make it break. It's stretch apart like taffy. I've worked in
vehicle repair, still have my welding torch, and know what hot steel
does, and does not do. This does not add up John. Ask a welder. Dont ask
a professional engineer or architect who hasta consider the effect on
his career of anything he mite say. Nobody gives a fuck what a welder
thinks. He can speak the truth. Ask him why the frame is in pieces.
When the bridge in MPLS fell, there wasnt any dust cloud. The steel is
bent and twisted, but was not broken into chunks conveniently sized to
be loaded on trucks to be hauled away.
Read Dr. Freud. When you challenge what a neurotic believes, he gets
angry. Freud also noted how innovative a neurotic is in explaining to
himself why he believes what he does. Rational discourse is not
effective in dispelling delusion. It takes crisis and trauma, for the
thing about neurosis is, that despite their misperceptions of what is
going on, they remain functional, can carry on with their careers and
care for their families.
I would add that some careers exclude the truly rational who cannot go
along with the group think. Studies have also shown, that when test
subjects are put in an institution as if they were insane, the staff
never picks up on the fact that they are not. And when you live and work
among neurotics, its extremely difficult to avoid their delusions.
age...@justicespammail.com
wrote:
>Iarnrod wrote:
>> Delusions of self-importance. Really, they "think" people are "paid"
>> to sit on usenet and discredit them? I'm sitting here laughing my ass
>> off and they think I am "angry?"I'd be disappointed if I got up
>> tomorrow and none of them replied with their kookerisms. It starts my
>> day off right!
>I dont expect you to read every post I put up on 911. I have many times
>been quite specific about the ways the 911 report does not add up.
Only because you don't pay attention.
>Drop concrete floors 1000 feet.
(a) have you seen the results of dropping concrete floors 1000 feet?
My bet is that you haven't because it's never happened before. And
actually it's not what happened on 9/11.
(b) Lots of heavy steel and other structure pummeled those "concrete
floors" on the way to the ground on 9/11.
>Concrete has been turned to rubble by
>warfare and structural collapse. But it has not been turned to so much
>dust that it affected the health of thousands of people across several
>square miles of area.
No building like the WTC buildings have ever suffered a structural
collapse either. BTW, the dust was not just concrete. There were
tons of sheetrock in those buildings. Bet you haven't seen what
happens when you crush sheet rock panels, have you?
>Why is there so much dust?
The buildings were quite large with lots of sheetrock and concrete in
them.
>I've seen reports on the dust which show
>microspheres of what had been molten metal as well as spectroscopic
>analysis that has the same profile as thermite.
And the "analysis" by Stephen Jones can't be depended on for much of
anything. BTW, what do you think is in sheet rock and other building
materials as compared to thermite?
>If the planes caused a pancake collapse,
The planes were only part of the reason for the collapse and the there
was no "pancake collapse".
> there'd be rubble, but not nearly that much dust.
And you know that exactly how?
>Read the studies on group think if you have the attention span. Marvel
>at the degree to which people will actually not believe their own eyes
>in order to go along with what they think is the group opinion. In this
>case, the group opinion was crafted by corporate mass media hacks, and
>they are quite good at it. I saw what the did to Barry Goldwater in 64.
And yes we are well aware of your dislke for the "evil" government and
corporate America. It colors your every comment.
>People thot I was a kook then, just like you do now, for not believing
>what the corporate mass media said.
But you're obviously quite willing to believe what other conspiracy
wackos say, aren't you?