9/11 "The Impossible" -- Enough here to "choke" the biggest disinfo agent

[Abe Linkman]

Anyone with more than a passing interest in 9/11 should read this powerful, comprehensive, disturbing analyisis. It will inform you and stimulate your own thinking about what really happened, WHY they did what they did, how FEMA, NIST, and others helped in the coverup, a new theory about the Pentagon missile strike, why Bunnypants flew around the country (I really liked this one because it confirmed exactly what I actually wrote down BEFORE I got that part in the article. Rumsfeld ain't the only Psychic in town!), what telltale signs will signal the next 9/11 (the author thinks it'll happen before the election...in Seattle or SF, or both), plenty of insights into the role of 9/11 DISINFO Agents on the Web, and much more.

The "Truth Ministry" Agents here will not even try to tackle this one...other than to maybe try and find a minor, trivial discrepancy in a detail that they can magnify, as though anyone here at DU will be impressed.

9/11 was an inside job. This provides you with far more proof than any reasonable person needs in order to know it and understand it.

http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/exp.htm


Note: The usual disruptors are cordially invited to offer their own alternative, SUBSTANTIVE theory of HOW the Official Conspiracy Theory could be the truth. Please, your credibility is rapidly sinking, do have the good sense to do more than just say "some Gov't report says it could have been caused by _____". Tell us HOW it could have happened, not just that some propaganda piece confirms that it "did".



http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/exp.htm

[northstar]

1. The greatest horror of 9-11 was the killing of the American Constitution

<snip>
The greatest horror of 9-11 was the killing of the American Constitution – for no good excuse whatsoever! The U.S. Constitution delivered and maintains the American way of life. If that document is abandoned – or destroyed; traditional America goes with it. Freedom and justice, as the entire world has come to know it, is defined, essentially, by the U.S. Constitution. What America HAD, the world wants. If the Constitution is reverted to the status of a political relic, the entire world faces the sunset of justice and freedom.

As it stands, the U.S. "powers" are going around the world meting out Gestapo justice in secret trials. Such is even proposed by the current President, exclusively naming him - personally - not his office, as the ultimate authority in the post 9-11 Presidential Military Order on terrorist tribunals.

Amazingly the President reserves the right to try "unlawful combatants," while sanctifying U.S. corporations farming out mercenary (unlawful combatant) forces in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. Somehow the world is expected to make a distinction between "mercenary" and "contractor."

There was no shortage of authority or power in the Constitution to prevent 9-11; it cannot totally prevent massive and methodical corruption; it can punish such deeds - including the related conspiracy. The necessary investigation powers were in place; before 9-11. The so-called "whistle blowers" got the shaft; 9-11 came from within!
<snip>

------------
I'm not done reading yet, but I want to kick this back up with a very good segment from your link. Thanks for posting this.

[NV Whino]

2. Whew

took a while to get through that. I think there are some holes in his theory, but he has some very viable questions and the "official" answers don't really answer them.

Three things have always stood out in my mind.

1. How is it that the FBI had photos of the hijackers in the Main airport before anyone had the passenger lists? We are talking less than 24 hours, here.

2. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the Pensylvania hole in the ground was not caused by a crashing airplane.

3. The collapse of the towers is typical of an emploded demolition rather than an exterior exploded impact. That's worded strangely, but the key words are emploded versus exploded.

Oh, and of course, dumbo's actions and reactions.

[RH]

5. 1.

Before asking "how is it", what please would the proof be that the FBI did not have the passenger lists before they had the Portland photos? (if that's what you mean)

[RH]

3. It will inform?

It had certainly not crossed my mind that it was possible to pack so many outright fallacies onto one web page. Quite remarkable!

If anybody thinks that anything in particular is to be found on that page that has not been discussed on previous democraticunderground threads it would possibly save others a good deal of time to know what exactly they have in mind.

I notice nothing that was not seen before.

[Abe Linkman]

6. You're just being coy, because you know it agrees w/your Pent. theories.

C'mon, Romey. You know this is the first time you've ever seen a Web page that actually AGREES with your own sophisticated analysis of all of the events which took place at the Pentagon on 9/11.

Your grin is showing.

[RH]

7. Save your worms

for the birds.

[Abe Linkman]

8. I DID. Just as soon as I heard your chirping.

You read the article, right? Then, you know what it says about the Pentagon attack, right? Is THAT why you're chirping for a worm?

[RH]

9. My opinions

have been seen before, as have many refutations of false assertions of fact.

If there is no new comment then there is no new comment to respond to. You may have the time to repeat yourself endlessly. I don't.

You may then as usual assert that this proves an inability to respond but for anybody who really wants to know the archive will prove you wrong. It has all been said before.

[Abe Linkman]

10. Which part of the analysis conflicts with your brilliant thinking?

Anything of substance that may have inadvertently slipped into your rants was debunked a very long time ago. Have you not had an original thought since 2001?

[RH]

12. My opoinions

have been seen before, as have many refutations of false assertions of fact.

If there is no new comment then there is no new comment to respond to. You may have the time to repeat yourself endlessly. I don't.

You may then as usual assert that this proves an inability to respond but for anybody who really wants to know the archive will prove you wrong. It has all been said before.

[Abe Linkman]

14. Does that mean you DO agree with what he says about the Pentagon attack?

That's what it sounds like, and that's all I'm asking you.

[RH]

22. Why not use the archive?

Why do you care what any particlar person here should think while apparently willing to dismiss every single eye witness testiment if it happens to suit your purpose? Is that supposed to make some kind of sense? Why is the opinion of anybody here more important? Why do you prefer hearsay to first hand evidence?

Can you explain that at all?

[Abe Linkman]

23. How 'bout if I just tell you that: YOU'VE BEEN SERVED.

Here's your sign.

(I think you got set up, Romey. Somebody didn't believe you and it appears their suspicion was accurate. No, I'm not going to tell you who it was. If they want to, that's their Grace Brothers business.)

[RH]

24. You're very welcome to tell me.

Please do.

The title line of your recent reply to me elsewhere is "Tell it to somebody who cares. There's 3 or 4 who share YOUR CT ideas."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=17379&mesg_id=17827&page=

In this thread you're asking "Which part of the analysis conflicts with your brilliant thinking?"

Which is it, Abe? . . . . :shrug:

Do you have some kind of special insight into my CT ideas or are you still wondering which part of the analysis conflicts?

You need to get your act together, Abe. You're cracking up.

:crazy:

[RH]

15. Your question would appear to demonstrate

that you have no awareness, no recollection of, no understanding of, nor any inclination to reseach what I have said before.

So why then would I waste the effort a second time over?

:shrug:

If perhaps you'd pick up respectfully on something somebody has said before maybe then they'd be that much more likely to take it seriously, to expand a theme or explicate a fact. You've been urged to use the archive before. I have not yet seen the smallest sign of any attempt to do so.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

4. Interesting WTC 7 analysis

but it fails to mention the often overlooked fact that Rudy Gulianini wa s, at the time of the attack, baking cookies in the OEM bunker for the Fema guys and gals who had arrived the night before. After the first plane hit, about the same time the mysterious man on the wtc 2 intercom was telling everyone to return to their offices, Giuliani and his crew were evacuated. With the most sophisticated covert op in world history unfolding around him, Giuliani, in his haste to escape, simply forgot to turn the oven off. I have it through one of my sources, an assistant editor on the joy of cooking's 23rd printing, that this oven was located right next to column 78. Sometime after 3 pm, the cookies began to heat and warp column 78, which failed two hours later. The failure of column 78, through a complicated series rube Goldberg-esque physical tautologies, brought the entire building crashing down into the footprint from whence it was erected.

[Robb]

11. I can only really speak to the UAL93 stuff

...but the guy's analysis of the impact scar is pretty ignorant.

The burn pattern is wrong; it’s symmetrical, not elongated.

No, it's elongated perfectly, exactly as it should look. He either didn't look at it very carefully, or, more likely, began with his conclusions and worked backwards.

Yet there is zero suggestion of horizontal movement of the supposed aircraft.

No, there's substantial suggestion of a SE-NW vector. This might be considered strange, but it's there.

A 757 would not have just morphed into the ground, leaving no prominent trace of parts. Not at ANY velocity!

Again, ignorance of what monocoque designs do when ruptured. Hopefully the rest of his analysis is more careful, but again I can't speak to the rest with any authority.

[Abe Linkman]

13. The part you say you "can't really speak to" - is pretty important.

If you are referring to the lack of evidence of an airliner crash at the alleged site. YES, I know that there are claims that some parts were found in various spots in and within 6-8 miles of the "crash" site. But, parts were also "discovered" at the Pentagon.

So, the most critical issue is whether or not a 757 crashed in Pennsylvania. The author concludes FL 93 didn't crash there. The reasons he gives for his conclusion are very convincing, in my judgment.

[RH]

16. OK. Try it like this.

Jury service training:

Make a list of pros and cons.

On one side show the reasons to believe that Flight 93 crashed there.
On the other side show the reasons to believe that it did not.

Then we can take a look to see which list is longest, which stands up best to examination, which points were neglected, and which points are the most pertinent.

Good idea?

[Robb]

18. I'm not an "expert" in every aspect of 9/11

...I do consider myself more informed than most about aircraft crashes in general and Flight 93 in particular. So I speak to what I'm good at.

In my judgement, the author didn't do much research about crashes before coming up with his opinion. I disagree with his conclusion because the arguments he uses are ill-informed.

:shrug:

[Abe Linkman]

19. Are you bothered by the lack of physical evidence of a plane crash?

Keeping in mind that it's very easy to drive down that conveniently located road adjacent to the "crash" site, and plant a few pieces of plane parts. Recall the gentleman (he may have been with the local High Sheriff's Department or County Government) who went out to the site because he was told a plane had crashed, but when he got there, he didn't see any sign of plane that had crashed.

[Robb]

20. I see plenty of physical evidence for a plane crash.

The earliest photos looked absolutely right. I've spoken with people who collected thousands of pieces of debris, even people who worked for the environmental cleanup company who took out contaminated dirt. And oddly enough it was contaminated with jet fuel.

I've spoken to people who collected human remains as well. The off-the-record phrase was "hamburger meat hanging in the trees".

Quite a lot of planting to do quickly, there.

Again, it looks just like a plane crash from the ground and from the air. All I can assume is this fellow apparently hadn't seen one before.

[Abe Linkman]

21. You mentioned a lot of things. Got ANY photos to substantiate any of it?

Photos of plane wreckage, for example? Not very many people HAVE seen a plane crash before. Have YOU seen one? Not very many people are in a good position to know exactly what happened there or in NYC or at the Pentagon. That doesn't stop any of us from having an opinion. You're entitled to yours, but with all due respect..HIS is comprehensive and rings of someone who has studied the available facts, tried to see what theory would fit with those facts, and his presentation speaks of someone who has a very good understanding of history and human nature. Best of all, he has a lot of ability and willingness to THINK.

[Robb]

25. Good grief.

He reproduces my repro of the first FBI aerial shot on the site -- either that, or he snagged it on 9/12 when I did, and shrunk and cropped it the exact same way I did, which is possible if not likely.

At any rate. If you think that photo looks symmetrical, I can't help.

HIS (theory) is comprehensive and rings of someone who has studied the available facts

Well, it may ring that way to you, but not to me. The lack of understanding of the basics ruins it for me.

While I do agree everyone is entitled to an opinion, it doesn't change the fact that not understanding how something works brings one's opinion down a few notches in importance.

The author doesn't understand a few things that he could probably learn if he asked, but he doesn't, because he doesn't like the answers. He's fitting his argument points to suit his theory. That is not a "willingness to think". It's zealotry. And it's an excellent way to derail the debate.

Frankly, if I were looking for "disinfo agents", I'd begin with people like this.

[Abe Linkman]

26. If I were looking for proof a plane crashed, I'd look for plane debris.

That would be far more convincing of what happened, don't you think?
Otherwise, it could be argued that the crater was caused by a meteorite,
dynamite, a controlled demolition of one of Dick Cheney's secret hideouts, Air Force bombing training, quality control area used by an
explosives company etc.

[RH]

27. Is that supposed to infer that nobody looked for debris?

Too bad then that you forgot to remind the investigation teams to do so!

Too bad then to spend so much time on the internet where the best you can hope to get is relative poor quality photos of debris or the word of somebody who did go look for debris.

[Robb]

28. You've both together hit the two big points:

First, that "common sense" doesn't always work, or as my friend the pathologist puts it, "truth isn't a democratic process".

For example, if you don't know a lot about headaches, and your doc puts you on new heart medication, and the next day you get a headache. You might be tempted to stop taking the heart medication, because you think it caused your headache. Your doc knows it didn't, and explains that it was the tuna salad you ate, or the tequila. But you're still pretty sure the headache happened right after the heart medication started, and what does that doc know, so you infer causality even though you don't understand the processes taking place.

The second good point is RH's, that there's no substitute for getting in the field. The internet can start you, but until you're out there you get stymied, limited not only by the low quality of photographs and poor reproductions of statements, but also by the biases of the people presenting them to the web.

People, unfortunately, are the best things to talk to. :) I've discovered that once you get off the internet, you can find actual experts in just about everything, instead of people who just think they're doctors.

And, to the issue: big chunks of debris are not necessarily found at crash sites, especially of monococque fuselages where the strength of the body is in the shape of the outer hull.

[RH]

29. To which I would add

that some of the most experienced people that I know not only actively avoid the Internet, they express a profound contempt for most of what arises on the Internet.

I wonder why?

(rhetorical question)

[LARED]

17. It's impossible to believe anyone buys into this foolishness.

Just highlighting some of the more bizarre statements.

The obviously pre-written "Patriot Act" was totally unnecessary; and an act of pure tyranny. Those in doubt of the previous statement need to observe cases such as Martha Stewart, who were charged with a crime, for having entered a "not guilty" plea at their trial. She wasn't alone; that's "tyranny," as America knows it.

Pre-written? What is that supposed to mean? Then he uses the Martha Steward case as an example of the “Patriot Act” acting as a case of pure tyranny? Can anyone say “step away from the bong?”

Seismic monitors will register a sonic boom, but the seismic monitors don’t reveal anything suggesting such an aircraft impact. ONLY AT THE PENTAGON!

Is he saying the Pentagon did register a seismic spike? Is he saying it did not? Does he have a clue? Based on what follows, I’d say nope.

The horizontal strike on the WTC towers, a thousand feet up, registered a major seismic spike - but nothing at the Pentagon; granted, there was a certain vertical component, as the WTC fuel burned.

I think he is actually stating that perhaps the fire ball at the WTC’s caused a seismic spike. (Hehehe)

The reason the Pentagon did not register a seismic signature is because it was hit nearly horizontal to the ground and impacted the Pentagon at grade. The Pentagon was built on soft ground and is not tied to the bedrock like the towers are.

Clearly an illusion was created, using the very best of "Perception Control." Start with the actual crash of an aircraft carrying thousands of gallons of Jet-A fuel –




Isn't it more than just "strange" that nothing similar was seen at the Pentagon!

What is he talking about? Here’s a picture of the fire ball at the Pentagon. Looks pretty similar to me.





Now ask yourself how THAT happened!

I did. The answer is a jet fuel explosion occurred in both buildings. I think most crack addicts could figure that one out even if stoned.

This nonsense has been hashed over ad nauseam. To pretend this guy brings something new to the CT’er table is just silly.

That's enough for now.

[Blue Member]

30. 'Loose Change' -- premiering in Washington D.C. September 11th, 2004.

In Memory Of the 3rd Anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001:

'Loose Change' -- premiering in Washington D.C. September 11th, 2004.

Movie Trailer: http://www.letsroll911.net/

Location, times, tickets: http://www.letsroll911.net/

[stickdog]

31. My assessment as a 9/11 skeptic. The dude tried to bite off a lot more

than he could chew.

I ran into this page over a year ago. If I thought it was particularly compelling, I would have linked it here.

Sorry, but a step by step analysis really isn't worth my time. I'm only trying to help here, Abe. I just don't think you should say anything that you can't back up much better than this guy backs up 3/4 of his observations.

My opinion only. Take it FWIW, but I'm definitely not the debunking type.