[Vote] Who did 911?

[kevindurant]

It's US government of course. They shot themself to fuck up whole middle-east.

[1715404306]

1715404306

[1715404306]

1715404306

[1715404306]

1715404306

[1715404306]

1715404306

[Spendulus]

You have to ask whether the explosion which created the Mushroom Cloud which we have evidence of (photographs) might have tossed that stuff up and out, instead of the explosion that is conjectured which happened somewhere in mid air (which you have no evidence of).

What you have not done is shown evidence of an explosion in mid air, or any sort of mid air breakup.

bad link
Archived at http://library.triblive.com

bad link
http://investor.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-7147291-0.html

bad link
http://www.dailyamerican.com/disaster.html#final

And this -
Workers at Indian Lake Marina said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday.

It should be obvious that if an explosion had occurred at 30,000 feet or 10,000 feet, and then the plane started straight down at 500 mph, the debris that floated down would not hit the ground "minutes later."
It would be quite a while before confetti-like debris hit the ground.

So you've got an explosion right there, right in front of you.

Regarding broken links, that is a common problem when researching things involving the government.

You have to look for copies such as https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://investor.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-7147291-0.html which, strangely, was not archived until November 2001.

If you want to have fun researching conspiracy type stuff, try to find the article published on cryptobang about the cryptonote algorithm. Never mind. The website is gone. Copied here though https://criticl.me/post/what-nsa-created-cryptonote-2292 yay.

No, I do not have to look for copies...It's not my job on a discussion forum to find copies of bad links.

You made assertions and backed your claim with links that were dead links.  Either you support the claim with evidence or lose the argument.

I don't see anything new or exciting in the story on cryptonote.

It has a lot of paragraphs that start with ...
"It's been reported..."
"It is believed that...."

Now is the argument that the real truth is on websites that have been taken down by the government because they would reveal the truth?  In other words, the very lack of evidence is evidence?  But there is still a problem with that because of all those reports of the Mushroom Cloud. 

So what is the actual claim about flight 93, that there were two explosions?  One in the air that broke the plane up and then, one on the ground?

This is making no sense, please help me out here.  Three cases:

1.  Plane was shot down, all evidence was secretly removed.  Reports of mushroom cloud are fabricated or explosives were trucked in to make that explosion as a cover story.
2.  Plane was shot down then made the hole in the ground.  Mushroom cloud was real and from the plane's fuel.  All parts of the aircraft that were scattered around were found and picked up by black helicopters leaving only the hole in the ground with the main fuselage of the aircraft.
3.  Plane was just ran into the ground creating the hole, as the government commission says.

#1 makes little sense, so how about #2?

The problem with #2 is that none of the evidence supports a mid air breakup or structural failure, that would have left major metal fragments over a large area.

Another problem with #2 is that to get the high rate of speed of the impact, either the aircraft needed to lose both wings or be going straight down at full power.  Any "Missile shoot down" scenario which left any unstreamlined object up in the air would result in (1) further breakup of the object or (2) the unstreamlined object being slowed by air drag and impacting the ground at approximately 185 mph.

[BADecker]

Oh come on you guys. We all know that Sandy Hook was a fabrication, and that nobody died. It was an inside job, just like 9/11. The difference in 9/11 was that people died.

[no-rice-peas]

No, I do not have to look for copies...It's not my job on a discussion forum to find copies of bad links.

You made assertions and backed your claim with links that were dead links.  Either you support the claim with evidence or lose the argument.

I don't see anything new or exciting in the story on cryptonote.

It has a lot of paragraphs that start with ...
"It's been reported..."
"It is believed that...."

Now is the argument that the real truth is on websites that have been taken down by the government because they would reveal the truth?  In other words, the very lack of evidence is evidence?  But there is still a problem with that because of all those reports of the Mushroom Cloud. 

So what is the actual claim about flight 93, that there were two explosions?  One in the air that broke the plane up and then, one on the ground?

This is making no sense, please help me out here.  Three cases:

1.  Plane was shot down, all evidence was secretly removed.  Reports of mushroom cloud are fabricated or explosives were trucked in to make that explosion as a cover story.
2.  Plane was shot down then made the hole in the ground.  Mushroom cloud was real and from the plane's fuel.  All parts of the aircraft that were scattered around were found and picked up by black helicopters leaving only the hole in the ground with the main fuselage of the aircraft.
3.  Plane was just ran into the ground creating the hole, as the government commission says.

#1 makes little sense, so how about #2?

The problem with #2 is that none of the evidence supports a mid air breakup or structural failure, that would have left major metal fragments over a large area.

Another problem with #2 is that to get the high rate of speed of the impact, either the aircraft needed to lose both wings or be going straight down at full power.  Any "Missile shoot down" scenario which left any unstreamlined object up in the air would result in (1) further breakup of the object or (2) the unstreamlined object being slowed by air drag and impacting the ground at approximately 185 mph.

If you want to research anything on the internet you are going to have to learn how to research bad links.

I posted a link to an old article that had some dead links. Most old articles have dead links. If you want to research them the answer is not to whine "its not my job to research...".

I don't really care what you believe or don't believe. You come across as a propagandist. Your rhetorical skills are poor, I'm being polite, and your analytical skills even worse.

A plane crashed.
Significant debris fell within minutes of the crash over an area of perhaps 8 miles.

Believe whatever you want.

[BitMos]

who wasn't on wtc 1-2 when they should have been? the pedophile connection to 9.11 with warren buffet as lead water boardeable... ohhh noo... I forget in usa you can rape 12 years old on your private jet, invite bill Clinton an many others and get 360 day in jail, that's it. so brennan will never do it, he is almost certainly one of them.

[Spendulus]

....

If you want to research anything on the internet you are going to have to learn how to research bad links.

I posted a link to an old article that had some dead links. Most old articles have dead links. If you want to research them the answer is not to whine "its not my job to research...".

I don't really care what you believe or don't believe. You come across as a propagandist. Your rhetorical skills are poor, I'm being polite, and your analytical skills even worse.

A plane crashed.
Significant debris fell within minutes of the crash over an area of perhaps 8 miles.

Believe whatever you want.

LOL, you are the one making the claims.  It is you that needs to support those claims adequately. 

I happen to be very knowledgeable in crater formation and the patterns of secondary ejection from craters, fairly knowledgable about aircraft structures and powerplants, and tactical air combat.  So it is easy for me to discuss this matter.  I don't need links to prove things.  It can be done with calculations, directly.

I am wondering, do you understand that if you make an assertion, and the "proof" contains bad links (eg, nothing), that you have provided zero proof?

I gave you three options, which do you think happened?

[no-rice-peas]

....


A plane crashed.
Significant debris fell within minutes of the crash over an area of perhaps 8 miles.

Believe whatever you want.

LOL, you are the one making the claims.  It is you that needs to support those claims adequately. 

I happen to be very knowledgeable in crater formation and the patterns of secondary ejection from craters, fairly knowledgable about aircraft structures and powerplants, and tactical air combat.  So it is easy for me to discuss this matter.  I don't need links to prove things.  It can be done with calculations, directly.

I am wondering, do you understand that if you make an assertion, and the "proof" contains bad links (eg, nothing), that you have provided zero proof?

I gave you three options, which do you think happened?

You can pretend to be an expert in anything you like.

Anyone can look at the evidence and decide for themselves.

You know very well that I provided a link to an old article and, as with most old articles, some links in the article were still good and some were not. Almost any article on the internet that is a few years old will contain some bad links. It is a sign of your desperation that you try to dismiss an old article because of dead links. As I said earlier why didn't you just use Internet archive or googlecache to view the links? And what about the good links that were in the article? Ignored?

Regardless what options you would like to offer, or how many of them, again, the evidence is that there was a very wide debris field within minutes of the crash, and most people would agree that indicates some disintegration of the plane while it was still n the air.

[Spendulus]

....


A plane crashed.
Significant debris fell within minutes of the crash over an area of perhaps 8 miles.

Believe whatever you want.

LOL, you are the one making the claims.  It is you that needs to support those claims adequately. 

I happen to be very knowledgeable in crater formation and the patterns of secondary ejection from craters, fairly knowledgable about aircraft structures and powerplants, and tactical air combat.  So it is easy for me to discuss this matter.  I don't need links to prove things.  It can be done with calculations, directly.

I am wondering, do you understand that if you make an assertion, and the "proof" contains bad links (eg, nothing), that you have provided zero proof?

I gave you three options, which do you think happened?

You can pretend to be an expert in anything you like.

Anyone can look at the evidence and decide for themselves.

You know very well that I provided a link to an old article and, as with most old articles, some links in the article were still good and some were not. Almost any article on the internet that is a few years old will contain some bad links. It is a sign of your desperation that you try to dismiss an old article because of dead links. As I said earlier why didn't you just use Internet archive or googlecache to view the links? And what about the good links that were in the article? Ignored?

Regardless what options you would like to offer, or how many of them, again, the evidence is that there was a very wide debris field within minutes of the crash, and most people would agree that indicates some disintegration of the plane while it was still n the air.

Ah.  There's no need here for ad hominem attacks.

I read a number of "the good links."

A disintegration of the aircraft while in the air would leave those parts laying around which disintegrated.  Just for kicks let's say ten tons.  Where is it?

[no-rice-peas]

Ah.  There's no need here for ad hominem attacks.

I read a number of "the good links."

A disintegration of the aircraft while in the air would leave those parts laying around which disintegrated.  Just for kicks let's say ten tons.  Where is it?

Ten tons? Let's suppose a missile hits it in a part of the cabin away from wings, engine etc. What would be the ten tons? There would be a lot of small debris from inside, then some small chunks of metal. The main aircraft would descend on one trajectory and the debris on various others.

Now let's suppose a simple crash. You are saying a mushroom cloud following a simple crash expelled debris almost instantly several miles from where the main part of the craft crashed?

Let me take out my calculator and see what it says. It says "No".

[Spendulus]

Ah.  There's no need here for ad hominem attacks.

I read a number of "the good links."

A disintegration of the aircraft while in the air would leave those parts laying around which disintegrated.  Just for kicks let's say ten tons.  Where is it?

Ten tons? Let's suppose a missile hits it in a part of the cabin away from wings, engine etc. What would be the ten tons? There would be a lot of small debris from inside, then some small chunks of metal. The main aircraft would descend on one trajectory and the debris on various others.

Now let's suppose a simple crash. You are saying a mushroom cloud following a simple crash expelled debris almost instantly several miles from where the main part of the craft crashed?

Let me take out my calculator and see what it says. It says "No".

Actually, the mushroom cloud from it's height and size the total energy of the explosion may be calculated.  Mushroom means hot gas, goes up and cools, then reaches a level where it moves horizontal, primary column is still moving vertical.  That's "an explosion."  Explosions throw things around, last I heard.  How far they throw things can certainly be estimated.

Go ahead, use your calculator and show your work.

[no-rice-peas]

Actually, the mushroom cloud from it's height and size the total energy of the explosion may be calculated.  Mushroom means hot gas, goes up and cools, then reaches a level where it moves horizontal, primary column is still moving vertical.  That's "an explosion."  Explosions throw things around, last I heard.  How far they throw things can certainly be estimated.

Go ahead, use your calculator and show your work.

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2013/02/shanksville-pennsylvania-on-911.html
"Flight 93 had a wingspan of 125 feet, a tail height of 44 feet, and was 155 feet long. [31] Is it really possible that such a large plane, when it hit the ground, would make a crater only about 40 feet across and 25 feet wide, and disappear entirely into soil just 35 feet deep? As reporter Jon Meyer commented, "You just can't believe a whole plane went into this crater." [32]"

"Local resident John Maslak was one of the first people to arrive at the site, and saw the crater where Flight 93 supposedly went into the ground. A state trooper told him a plane had crashed there. But, Maslak has commented: "There was no way. The hole wasn't big enough and there was nothing there." [16]"

"Some paper items discovered at the crash scene played a role in supporting the official account of the 9/11 attacks and who was responsible for them. For example, according to FBI agents who were involved in the recovery effort, items made of paper and other fragile materials that belonged to the alleged hijackers were found. These included driver's licenses, identification cards, passports, a credit card, receipts, tickets, a red bandana, pages from the Koran, and "a checklist reminding the terrorists to blend in when boarding planes and instructing them to 'shave their beards.'" Referring to items found at the supposed crash site of Flight 93, FBI agent A. Todd McCall said the hijackers "thought their identification would be destroyed during the attacks," but, he added, "They were wrong." [57]"

"Other wreckage was found near a pond by firefighter Mike Sube and a couple of his colleagues. This included "a portion of the landing gear and the fuselage," according to Sube. Sube said that "one of the tires was still intact with the bracket, and probably about three to five windows of the fuselage were actually in one piece lying there." [67]"

"Furthermore, some lightweight debris was found in the borough of New Baltimore, about eight miles from the supposed crash site and separated from it by a mountain ridge. [75] One New Baltimore resident, Melanie Hankinson, had been told by a neighbor, "There was a loud bang and smoke, and then these papers started blowing through your yard." [76] Hankinson subsequently found "several financial documents, an airline magazine, a pilot handbook, and other small pieces of debris." [77] She recalled, "There was some black webbing"--apparently from insulation that had lined the belly of the plane. "A lot of people found that," she added. [78]"

****

Also note that the debris fields indicate the direction the plane was flying

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/flight93site.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/index.html

[Danydee]

 My think is that is an international consortium of egomaniacs, (in this way every argument can be justified as provoked by them)

[Spendulus]

Actually, the mushroom cloud from it's height and size the total energy of the explosion may be calculated.  Mushroom means hot gas, goes up and cools, then reaches a level where it moves horizontal, primary column is still moving vertical.  That's "an explosion."  Explosions throw things around, last I heard.  How far they throw things can certainly be estimated.

Go ahead, use your calculator and show your work.

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2013/02/shanksville-pennsylvania-on-911.html
"Flight 93 had a wingspan of 125 feet, a tail height of 44 feet, and was 155 feet long. [31] Is it really possible that such a large plane, when it hit the ground, would make a crater only about 40 feet across and 25 feet wide, and disappear entirely into soil just 35 feet deep? As reporter Jon Meyer commented, "You just can't believe a whole plane went into this crater." [32]"

"Local resident John Maslak was one of the first people to arrive at the site, and saw the crater where Flight 93 supposedly went into the ground. A state trooper told him a plane had crashed there. But, Maslak has commented: "There was no way. The hole wasn't big enough and there was nothing there." [16]"

"Some paper items discovered at the crash scene played a role in supporting the official account of the 9/11 attacks and who was responsible for them. For example, according to FBI agents who were involved in the recovery effort, items made of paper and other fragile materials that belonged to the alleged hijackers were found. These included driver's licenses, identification cards, passports, a credit card, receipts, tickets, a red bandana, pages from the Koran, and "a checklist reminding the terrorists to blend in when boarding planes and instructing them to 'shave their beards.'" Referring to items found at the supposed crash site of Flight 93, FBI agent A. Todd McCall said the hijackers "thought their identification would be destroyed during the attacks," but, he added, "They were wrong." [57]"

"Other wreckage was found near a pond by firefighter Mike Sube and a couple of his colleagues. This included "a portion of the landing gear and the fuselage," according to Sube. Sube said that "one of the tires was still intact with the bracket, and probably about three to five windows of the fuselage were actually in one piece lying there." [67]"

"Furthermore, some lightweight debris was found in the borough of New Baltimore, about eight miles from the supposed crash site and separated from it by a mountain ridge. [75] One New Baltimore resident, Melanie Hankinson, had been told by a neighbor, "There was a loud bang and smoke, and then these papers started blowing through your yard." [76] Hankinson subsequently found "several financial documents, an airline magazine, a pilot handbook, and other small pieces of debris." [77] She recalled, "There was some black webbing"--apparently from insulation that had lined the belly of the plane. "A lot of people found that," she added. [78]"

****

Also note that the debris fields indicate the direction the plane was flying

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/flight93site.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/index.html

Your own link does not show that 93 was shot down.  Consider this statement made:

Evidence Indicates Flight 93 Was Shot Down

Then look at the following paragraph-

According to the official story, Flight 93, the fourth jetliner commandeered on 9/11/01, was flown into the ground near Shanksville, PA, as a result of a struggle in the cockpit between the hijackers and passengers who had rushed them in an attempt to gain control of the aircraft or otherwise prevent it from crashing into a strategic target, such as the U.S. Capitol.

The evidence shows that Flight 93 did indeed crash near Shanksville, and suggests that the passengers did struggle to gain control of the plane. However, the cause of the crash was apparently trauma to the aircraft -- such as a missile strike -- rather than the actions of whoever was in the cockpit.

Trauma to the aircraft has multiple causes, the most obvious being overstressing the airframe due to pulling negative G force, causing structural failure.  The article says "Trauma to the aircraft - such as a missile strike."  But it does not provide EVIDENCE of a missile strike, it only suggests that as possible.

That's all you have.  You read the title and believed it.  Then you didn't actually read the paragraph.

Note, I don't see the need to assume a mid flight breakup because all the evidence points against it.  But even if you do, you have to admit that a missile strike is not proven by the article.  Not in the least.

[Spendulus]

That's all you have.  You read the title and believed it.  Then you didn't actually read the paragraph.

Note, I don't see the need to assume a mid flight breakup because all the evidence points against it.  But even if you do, you have to admit that a missile strike is not proven by the article.  Not in the least.

The articvle has something like a hundred paragraphs.

You take one paragraph completely out of context and use that as your argument?

Seriously?

Certainly.  That's what we do in debate.  If you think other evidence contradicts my assertion you simply state it.

Missile strikes not only leave distinctive patterns of debris, from their free fall at abnut 185 miles per hour, not 500 mph as the impact crater shows.  They also leave chemical traces on the debris which indicates the type of and composition of the explosives.  Finding such traces would be evidence of a mid air explosion.  Finding sections of the aircraft with impact strikes from outside the aircraft would be evidence of a mid air missile strike.  Radar tracking data showing to objects merging would be evidence of something like a mid air collision or a missile strike.

You have simply presented NO data while claiming you did.

[abcdave]

who wasn't on wtc 1-2 when they should have been? the pedophile connection to 9.11 with warren buffet as lead water boardeable... ohhh noo... I forget in usa you can rape 12 years old on your private jet, invite bill Clinton an many others and get 360 day in jail, that's it. so brennan will never do it, he is almost certainly one of them.

What the hell are you talking about? Are you saying pedo's were behind 9/11 now? Was Jimmy Saville and The Royal Family involved too?

[Spendulus]

That's all you have.  You read the title and believed it.  Then you didn't actually read the paragraph.

Note, I don't see the need to assume a mid flight breakup because all the evidence points against it.  But even if you do, you have to admit that a missile strike is not proven by the article.  Not in the least.

The articvle has something like a hundred paragraphs.

You take one paragraph completely out of context and use that as your argument?

Seriously?

Certainly.  That's what we do in debate.  If you think other evidence contradicts my assertion you simply state it.

Missile strikes not only leave distinctive patterns of debris, from their free fall at abnut 185 miles per hour, not 500 mph as the impact crater shows.  They also leave chemical traces on the debris which indicates the type of and composition of the explosives.  Finding such traces would be evidence of a mid air explosion.  Finding sections of the aircraft with impact strikes from outside the aircraft would be evidence of a mid air missile strike.  Radar tracking data showing to objects merging would be evidence of something like a mid air collision or a missile strike.

You have simply presented NO data while claiming you did.

1) Problem is, anyone can go to that page and see that you are misrepresenting the information. The next step of course is for them to wonder why.

2) The debris pattern would be determined by a number of factors including the type of missile, where it hit, the altitude etc. In this specific case the first step is deciding whether the debris is consistent with a 'simple crash' in which the plane was intact on impact with the ground. Until that step has reasonable consensus the following steps are pointless.

3) Your arguments sort of pander to people who are not interested in thinking nor figuring out things. Is it because you want them as allies? Or is it the Donner party choosing between shoe leather and meat?

Gee, you know what.  My saying you have presented no data is accurate.  You are now trying to refer people to "that page" for THE TRUTH.   Well, I already showed you calculations of impact energies.  Directly.  Right in this thread. 

I guess if you had some actual evidence you'd present it.

....

[TPTB_need_war]

DEEP STATE of the US gov. Dick Cheney played a vital role.

Why can't I vote?

[chmod755]

I can't be bothered to think about it.

[darkangel11]

The evidence shows that Flight 93 did indeed crash near Shanksville, and suggests that the passengers did struggle to gain control of the plane. However, the cause of the crash was apparently trauma to the aircraft -- such as a missile strike -- rather than the actions of whoever was in the cockpit.

If it is so why there were almost no debris? The plane is made of different metals and alloys and can't just burn down and turn to dust.
Just to compare:

Malaysian flight 17 shot down in Ukraine:


Flight 93

[darkangel11]

The evidence shows that Flight 93 did indeed crash near Shanksville, and suggests that the passengers did struggle to gain control of the plane. However, the cause of the crash was apparently trauma to the aircraft -- such as a missile strike -- rather than the actions of whoever was in the cockpit.

If it is so why there were almost no debris? The plane is made of different metals and alloys and can't just burn down and turn to dust.

He is actually arguing the other side.

The argument for a regular crash claims that the plane either burrowed into the ground and was then covered up by earth or that a huge explosion vaporized everything or some mix.

Neither makes sense when you consider the identity documents and similar fragile items were recovered from the hijackers undamaged but their bodies were largely incinerated.

It reminds a person of the great strange leaps science made during Ronald Reagan's rule, such as the notion that most polution is caused by trees. Though I was looking forward to his plan to make the pacific ocean more swimmer friendly by chlorinating it. That would have created tens of thousands of jobs for people to row around the shore skimming dead bugs.

I agree. There are just some facts that don't make sense here. You just can't vaporize a turbine made of tungsten and this crash site is not the only fishy thing in the whole 911 attack. If it was just this we could speculate, but somehow they were able to recover documents from planes that hit the towers, but couldn't recover the engines... And then there's the invisible plane that hit the Pentagon and also burned down...