Twoofer Strategy

[BrianH]

There were witnesses on the freeway that SAW the plane hit the pentagon.

How come witnesses are everything when you truthers want to claim that WTC was demolished because people heard the explosions (Even though they're not heard in the videos). But then when witnesses actually see a plane hitting the pentagon, suddenly these witnesses are not credible. ???? You truthers cherry-pick your information. Why are the people that witnessed the plane hitting the pentagon less credible than the witnesses that supposedly heard demolition explosives???

 

[BrianH]

There were witnesses on the freeway that SAW the plane hit the pentagon.

How come witnesses are everything when you truthers want to claim that WTC was demolished because people heard the explosions (Even though they're not heard in the videos). But then when witnesses actually see a plane hitting the pentagon, suddenly these witnesses are not credible. ???? You truthers cherry-pick your information. Why are the people that witnessed the plane hitting the pentagon less credible than the witnesses that supposedly heard demolition explosives???

-The bodies of people on the airplane were recovered at the Pentagon. (DNA from the remains were matched to the passengers on the plane.)
-Passenegers aboard the plane made phone calls that the plane had been hijacked before the plane hit the pentagon.
-Photographs SHOW debris from the plane scattered at the crash site

To suggest that anything else has happened would be infantile and naive. (Or blind) (Or stupid) (Or retarded).

 

[candycorn]

There were witnesses on the freeway that SAW the plane hit the pentagon.

How come witnesses are everything when you truthers want to claim that WTC was demolished because people heard the explosions (Even though they're not heard in the videos). But then when witnesses actually see a plane hitting the pentagon, suddenly these witnesses are not credible. ???? You truthers cherry-pick your information. Why are the people that witnessed the plane hitting the pentagon less credible than the witnesses that supposedly heard demolition explosives???

You've hit the nail on the head; However the better way to put it, I think, they cherry pick what THEY WANT the information to be; not the presented information. For example, NOBODY saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. Even the "cops" (notice how they have disappeared after the CIT team interviewed these "cops") never said flyover. Yet amazingly it became a "flyover".

To Juggs credit he discounts these wild assed theories and thinks it was, I'll admit, the MUCH more plausible IHOP. Of course in the universe of twooferdom, think of the Sun as the 9/11 Commission Report. flyover is Pluto, Thermite is Nepute and LIHOP is Triton (a moon of neptune) and all are lightyears away from the truth and are in danger of being demoted.

 

[JiggsCasey]

To Juggs credit he discounts these wild assed theories and thinks it was, I'll admit, the MUCH more plausible IHOP. Of course in the universe of twooferdom, think of the Sun as the 9/11 Commission Report. flyover is Pluto, Thermite is Nepute and LIHOP is Triton (a moon of neptune) and all are lightyears away from the truth and are in danger of being demoted.

Dude. What the fuck are you even talking about?

Don't drink and post.

 

[candycorn]

To Juggs credit he discounts these wild assed theories and thinks it was, I'll admit, the MUCH more plausible IHOP. Of course in the universe of twooferdom, think of the Sun as the 9/11 Commission Report. flyover is Pluto, Thermite is Nepute and LIHOP is Triton (a moon of neptune) and all are lightyears away from the truth and are in danger of being demoted.

Dude. What the fuck are you even talking about?

Don't drink and post.

It demonstrates how far away from the truth you are there Pluto.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

To Juggs credit he discounts these wild assed theories and thinks it was, I'll admit, the MUCH more plausible IHOP. Of course in the universe of twooferdom, think of the Sun as the 9/11 Commission Report. flyover is Pluto, Thermite is Nepute and LIHOP is Triton (a moon of neptune) and all are lightyears away from the truth and are in danger of being demoted.

Dude. What the fuck are you even talking about?

Don't drink and post.

thats candyfag for you.the drunk druggie.

 

[BrianH]

To Juggs credit he discounts these wild assed theories and thinks it was, I'll admit, the MUCH more plausible IHOP. Of course in the universe of twooferdom, think of the Sun as the 9/11 Commission Report. flyover is Pluto, Thermite is Nepute and LIHOP is Triton (a moon of neptune) and all are lightyears away from the truth and are in danger of being demoted.

Dude. What the fuck are you even talking about?

Don't drink and post.

He was demonstrating that what you say is nonsense...I'm not attacking you, but merely pointing out what he posted.

 

[candycorn]

To Juggs credit he discounts these wild assed theories and thinks it was, I'll admit, the MUCH more plausible IHOP. Of course in the universe of twooferdom, think of the Sun as the 9/11 Commission Report. flyover is Pluto, Thermite is Nepute and LIHOP is Triton (a moon of neptune) and all are lightyears away from the truth and are in danger of being demoted.

Dude. What the fuck are you even talking about?

Don't drink and post.

He was demonstrating that what you say is nonsense...I'm not attacking you, but merely pointing out what he posted.

He knows what I posted and the meaning of it. He's intellectually dishonest. He wants to prove LIHOP...instead the only thing he has proven is that he is that dishonest.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Dude. What the fuck are you even talking about?

Don't drink and post.

He was demonstrating that what you say is nonsense...I'm not attacking you, but merely pointing out what he posted.

He knows what I posted and the meaning of it. He's intellectually dishonest. He wants to prove LIHOP...instead the only thing he has proven is that he is that dishonest.

Wrong, toolshed. I seriously have no idea what you were trying to convey. That's why I asked the question. Fact is, you're not a very good writer to begin with... but when you throw in some retarded allegory alluding to our solar system? It becomes truly tedious.

"Intellectually dishonest?" That was my term for you. Don't project, and worse, don't use my material.

There is nothing here that I've been remotely dishonest about. Your reply to the ISI money trail question, however, has been the embodiment of intellectual dishonesty. No mistake about it. That, and your lame punt to linking the FBI's report in response to the "independent investigation" assertion... You're incapable of debate honesty. Or you can't read. Dishonest or stupid, i'm not sure which is worse. But as is the case for your hero, W., you exhibit both. So I guess that's the fitting double dose.

 

[BrianH]

He was demonstrating that what you say is nonsense...I'm not attacking you, but merely pointing out what he posted.

He knows what I posted and the meaning of it. He's intellectually dishonest. He wants to prove LIHOP...instead the only thing he has proven is that he is that dishonest.

Wrong, toolshed. I seriously have no idea what you were trying to convey. That's why I asked the question. Fact is, you're not a very good writer to begin with... but when you throw in some retarded allegory alluding to our solar system? It becomes truly tedious.

"Intellectually dishonest?" That was my term for you. Don't project, and worse, don't use my material.

There is nothing here that I've been remotely dishonest about. Your reply to the ISI money trail question, however, has been the embodiment of intellectual dishonesty. No mistake about it. That, and your lame punt to linking the FBI's report in response to the "independent investigation" assertion... You're incapable of debate honesty. Or you can't read. Dishonest or stupid, i'm not sure which is worse. But as is the case for your hero, W., you exhibit both. So I guess that's the fitting double dose.

Look, nothing is wrong with another investigation. However, I've said before that even if there was another investigation, 9/11 truthers would not be satisfied unless it was done by people of their choosing. They would not believe anything coming from anyone else. Therefore, anyone they would choose to do it would already bring some biased to the table. Our lovely climatologists are living and breathing proof that people with biased views towards an issue are not the ones to conduct the experiments and make the models.

Here are some facts that, so far, have not warranted a new investigation IMO.


Pentagon
1. Bodies of passengers were found at the crashsite at the Pentagon. (I doubt the miltary loaded them all aboard a cruise missle.)
2. DNA has linked these remains to the people on the plane that hit the Pentagon.
3. There are literally hundreds of eyewitnesses that saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Not only from the freeway, but some from the actual lawn and parking areas of the Pentagon.
4. The fact there has been no substantial evidence of a conspiracy regarding the Pentagon attack, this (by the law of probability) makes it more likely that the WTC attacks were not some kind of a conspiracy also.

WTC Towers

1. Actual video and audio of the towers falling do not support he initiation of a controlled demolition. (Truthers say that the building fell "like" a building being demolished; however, there were not demolition explosions, no evidence AT ALL that there was any kind of demolition explosives.) Truthers claim that maybe Thermite was used to "cut" the beams. They try to prove this theory by showing beams behind firefighters that are "neatly" cut in a downward angle, suggesting that thermite was used. This is easily disproven because metal workers at ground-zero have been photographed actually cutting these beams at the same angle so that the steel beams would fall a certain way without endangering anyone.
2. Truthers also claim that "explosions" were heard before the building collapsed. There are NUMEROUS things that can cause explosions or the sound of such. Electrical swithgears, transformers, and large electrical fuses shorting out, expanding and contracting steel, and let's not forget the giant burning planes atop the towers. It has been proven that a plane burning alone in a field will explode and continue to explode for a long time while it is burning. You can look the video up on youtube. Aside from that, the sheer weight of the building snapping linkages in the steel beams are would be enough to cause significant popping and smalle "explosion" sounds upon the buildings initial descent.

3. The existenece of molten metal and the "melting steel" theory was also disproven. The planes entire exterior is made of aluminum. Also, there were THOUSANDS of desks, file cabinets, and other metals (not made of pure steel) within the building that would have easily melted and become molten in nature.

4. Suggesting that a building falling similar to a controlled demolition is not something that signifies that a building was demolished professionally. For some reason, truthers seem to think that gravity doesn't exist and that the building should have tipped over like a domino. Or at least withered away from left to right like a sand mummy in a Hollywood movie.

WTC 7

1. Also, statements from individuals used by truthers to "prove" their point have routinely been proven false by these exact individuals. Example: Larry Silverstein has said that by "pull" he did not mean to demolish the building. Truthers use a video clip of firefighters to say that there were explosive devices that were found at the WTC. However, the clip they use to "prove" their point is incomplete. When one does further research, the clip continues to show firefighters saying that explosives devices were reported at the high school....not WTC 7. It has also been proven that "pull" is not only used by firefighters to mean to "pull" people from a building, but also to be used in civil engineering terms of actually attaching cables to a building and shimming it one direction or another to make sure it does not fall in a certain direction. FURTHERMORE: It would not matter if WTC 7 was actually demolished. Aside from a crazy notion (and no proof) that the government wanted to get rid of evidence of the conspiracy, there is no reason to believe that the government would want to demolsh the building. If the building WERE demolished, it would most likely have been due to safety factors. Would any of YOU go to work in that building after this event? NOPE. Buildings are labeled inefficient and unstable all of the time and then brought down. So even if there were sufficient evidence that the building was demolished (which there isn't) it wouldn't bother me any.

In conclusion I'll say, once again, that many truthers claim that this VAST number of engineers and architects have come foreward with this petititon to start a new investigation.

1. "VAST" is slightly incorrect. There are approximately 10 million people in the U.S. that have architecture and engineering degrees.... A mere 2500 worldwide have signed this petition that the truthers are so proud of. 2500 out of 10 million does not numerically warrant anything. Let's not also forget that ALOT of these 2500 "so-called" engineers are not even structural engineers. If the 9/11 demolition theory were absolutely and irrevutable true, then you would most certainly have more engineers and architects coming forward. And 9/11 Truth and 9/11 Inside Job, don't post me a list of 200 engineers to prove your point, or a list of firefighters, or a list of military men. And don't post me the list of 2500 petition signers, because I've already stated that these numbers are a pin-drop in the ocean.

2. Steven E Jones' theory was rejected by all of his collegues and eventually releived from his duties at Brigham Young. His collegues reviewed his "theory" and "evidence" and eventually said he was nuts.

3. Truthers also claim that the hi-jackers were hired by the government to carry out these attacks. This is an upsurd notion. The vast majority of the hijackers were fro Suadi Arabia. Why would the government hire people from an allied nation? Surely a government with the capability to carry out these precise attacks would be smart enough to hire people from a country that hates us.... It just doesn't add up.

Truthers have found no "smoking-gun" in regards to the 9/11 attacks. Everything they've posted as "proof" are simply speculations. You can usually tell that by debating with one. You show them actual evidence refuting their theory, and they say..."Well maybe they did it because of this" or "What if the government wanted that to happen?"

Are there things the government doesn't want us to know? Sure. There always has and there always will be. Does this mean that everythign that happens is caused and orchestrated by the government (or associates--for the truthers)? NO . 9/11 has not been proven to be an inside job...period.

 

[candycorn]

He knows what I posted and the meaning of it. He's intellectually dishonest. He wants to prove LIHOP...instead the only thing he has proven is that he is that dishonest.

Wrong, toolshed. I seriously have no idea what you were trying to convey. That's why I asked the question. Fact is, you're not a very good writer to begin with... but when you throw in some retarded allegory alluding to our solar system? It becomes truly tedious.

"Intellectually dishonest?" That was my term for you. Don't project, and worse, don't use my material.

There is nothing here that I've been remotely dishonest about. Your reply to the ISI money trail question, however, has been the embodiment of intellectual dishonesty. No mistake about it. That, and your lame punt to linking the FBI's report in response to the "independent investigation" assertion... You're incapable of debate honesty. Or you can't read. Dishonest or stupid, i'm not sure which is worse. But as is the case for your hero, W., you exhibit both. So I guess that's the fitting double dose.

Look, nothing is wrong with another investigation. However, I've said before that even if there was another investigation, 9/11 truthers would not be satisfied unless it was done by people of their choosing. They would not believe anything coming from anyone else. Therefore, anyone they would choose to do it would already bring some biased to the table. Our lovely climatologists are living and breathing proof that people with biased views towards an issue are not the ones to conduct the experiments and make the models.

Here are some facts that, so far, have not warranted a new investigation IMO.


Pentagon
1. Bodies of passengers were found at the crashsite at the Pentagon. (I doubt the miltary loaded them all aboard a cruise missle.)
2. DNA has linked these remains to the people on the plane that hit the Pentagon.
3. There are literally hundreds of eyewitnesses that saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Not only from the freeway, but some from the actual lawn and parking areas of the Pentagon.
4. The fact there has been no substantial evidence of a conspiracy regarding the Pentagon attack, this (by the law of probability) makes it more likely that the WTC attacks were not some kind of a conspiracy also.

WTC Towers

1. Actual video and audio of the towers falling do not support he initiation of a controlled demolition. (Truthers say that the building fell "like" a building being demolished; however, there were not demolition explosions, no evidence AT ALL that there was any kind of demolition explosives.) Truthers claim that maybe Thermite was used to "cut" the beams. They try to prove this theory by showing beams behind firefighters that are "neatly" cut in a downward angle, suggesting that thermite was used. This is easily disproven because metal workers at ground-zero have been photographed actually cutting these beams at the same angle so that the steel beams would fall a certain way without endangering anyone.
2. Truthers also claim that "explosions" were heard before the building collapsed. There are NUMEROUS things that can cause explosions or the sound of such. Electrical swithgears, transformers, and large electrical fuses shorting out, expanding and contracting steel, and let's not forget the giant burning planes atop the towers. It has been proven that a plane burning alone in a field will explode and continue to explode for a long time while it is burning. You can look the video up on youtube. Aside from that, the sheer weight of the building snapping linkages in the steel beams are would be enough to cause significant popping and smalle "explosion" sounds upon the buildings initial descent.

3. The existenece of molten metal and the "melting steel" theory was also disproven. The planes entire exterior is made of aluminum. Also, there were THOUSANDS of desks, file cabinets, and other metals (not made of pure steel) within the building that would have easily melted and become molten in nature.

4. Suggesting that a building falling similar to a controlled demolition is not something that signifies that a building was demolished professionally. For some reason, truthers seem to think that gravity doesn't exist and that the building should have tipped over like a domino. Or at least withered away from left to right like a sand mummy in a Hollywood movie.

WTC 7

1. Also, statements from individuals used by truthers to "prove" their point have routinely been proven false by these exact individuals. Example: Larry Silverstein has said that by "pull" he did not mean to demolish the building. Truthers use a video clip of firefighters to say that there were explosive devices that were found at the WTC. However, the clip they use to "prove" their point is incomplete. When one does further research, the clip continues to show firefighters saying that explosives devices were reported at the high school....not WTC 7. It has also been proven that "pull" is not only used by firefighters to mean to "pull" people from a building, but also to be used in civil engineering terms of actually attaching cables to a building and shimming it one direction or another to make sure it does not fall in a certain direction. FURTHERMORE: It would not matter if WTC 7 was actually demolished. Aside from a crazy notion (and no proof) that the government wanted to get rid of evidence of the conspiracy, there is no reason to believe that the government would want to demolsh the building. If the building WERE demolished, it would most likely have been due to safety factors. Would any of YOU go to work in that building after this event? NOPE. Buildings are labeled inefficient and unstable all of the time and then brought down. So even if there were sufficient evidence that the building was demolished (which there isn't) it wouldn't bother me any.

In conclusion I'll say, once again, that many truthers claim that this VAST number of engineers and architects have come foreward with this petititon to start a new investigation.

1. "VAST" is slightly incorrect. There are approximately 10 million people in the U.S. that have architecture and engineering degrees.... A mere 2500 worldwide have signed this petition that the truthers are so proud of. 2500 out of 10 million does not numerically warrant anything. Let's not also forget that ALOT of these 2500 "so-called" engineers are not even structural engineers. If the 9/11 demolition theory were absolutely and irrevutable true, then you would most certainly have more engineers and architects coming forward. And 9/11 Truth and 9/11 Inside Job, don't post me a list of 200 engineers to prove your point, or a list of firefighters, or a list of military men. And don't post me the list of 2500 petition signers, because I've already stated that these numbers are a pin-drop in the ocean.

2. Steven E Jones' theory was rejected by all of his collegues and eventually releived from his duties at Brigham Young. His collegues reviewed his "theory" and "evidence" and eventually said he was nuts.

3. Truthers also claim that the hi-jackers were hired by the government to carry out these attacks. This is an upsurd notion. The vast majority of the hijackers were fro Suadi Arabia. Why would the government hire people from an allied nation? Surely a government with the capability to carry out these precise attacks would be smart enough to hire people from a country that hates us.... It just doesn't add up.

Truthers have found no "smoking-gun" in regards to the 9/11 attacks. Everything they've posted as "proof" are simply speculations. You can usually tell that by debating with one. You show them actual evidence refuting their theory, and they say..."Well maybe they did it because of this" or "What if the government wanted that to happen?"

Are there things the government doesn't want us to know? Sure. There always has and there always will be. Does this mean that everythign that happens is caused and orchestrated by the government (or associates--for the truthers)? NO . 9/11 has not been proven to be an inside job...period.

KSM will be found guilty of being the mastermind of 9/11. It will be proven. Watch, the day after, you'll have retards posting that Bush/Cheney was behind it.

They love attention almost as much as they hate this country.

 

[BrianH]

Wrong, toolshed. I seriously have no idea what you were trying to convey. That's why I asked the question. Fact is, you're not a very good writer to begin with... but when you throw in some retarded allegory alluding to our solar system? It becomes truly tedious.

"Intellectually dishonest?" That was my term for you. Don't project, and worse, don't use my material.

There is nothing here that I've been remotely dishonest about. Your reply to the ISI money trail question, however, has been the embodiment of intellectual dishonesty. No mistake about it. That, and your lame punt to linking the FBI's report in response to the "independent investigation" assertion... You're incapable of debate honesty. Or you can't read. Dishonest or stupid, i'm not sure which is worse. But as is the case for your hero, W., you exhibit both. So I guess that's the fitting double dose.

Look, nothing is wrong with another investigation. However, I've said before that even if there was another investigation, 9/11 truthers would not be satisfied unless it was done by people of their choosing. They would not believe anything coming from anyone else. Therefore, anyone they would choose to do it would already bring some biased to the table. Our lovely climatologists are living and breathing proof that people with biased views towards an issue are not the ones to conduct the experiments and make the models.

Here are some facts that, so far, have not warranted a new investigation IMO.


Pentagon
1. Bodies of passengers were found at the crashsite at the Pentagon. (I doubt the miltary loaded them all aboard a cruise missle.)
2. DNA has linked these remains to the people on the plane that hit the Pentagon.
3. There are literally hundreds of eyewitnesses that saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Not only from the freeway, but some from the actual lawn and parking areas of the Pentagon.
4. The fact there has been no substantial evidence of a conspiracy regarding the Pentagon attack, this (by the law of probability) makes it more likely that the WTC attacks were not some kind of a conspiracy also.

WTC Towers

1. Actual video and audio of the towers falling do not support he initiation of a controlled demolition. (Truthers say that the building fell "like" a building being demolished; however, there were not demolition explosions, no evidence AT ALL that there was any kind of demolition explosives.) Truthers claim that maybe Thermite was used to "cut" the beams. They try to prove this theory by showing beams behind firefighters that are "neatly" cut in a downward angle, suggesting that thermite was used. This is easily disproven because metal workers at ground-zero have been photographed actually cutting these beams at the same angle so that the steel beams would fall a certain way without endangering anyone.
2. Truthers also claim that "explosions" were heard before the building collapsed. There are NUMEROUS things that can cause explosions or the sound of such. Electrical swithgears, transformers, and large electrical fuses shorting out, expanding and contracting steel, and let's not forget the giant burning planes atop the towers. It has been proven that a plane burning alone in a field will explode and continue to explode for a long time while it is burning. You can look the video up on youtube. Aside from that, the sheer weight of the building snapping linkages in the steel beams are would be enough to cause significant popping and smalle "explosion" sounds upon the buildings initial descent.

3. The existenece of molten metal and the "melting steel" theory was also disproven. The planes entire exterior is made of aluminum. Also, there were THOUSANDS of desks, file cabinets, and other metals (not made of pure steel) within the building that would have easily melted and become molten in nature.

4. Suggesting that a building falling similar to a controlled demolition is not something that signifies that a building was demolished professionally. For some reason, truthers seem to think that gravity doesn't exist and that the building should have tipped over like a domino. Or at least withered away from left to right like a sand mummy in a Hollywood movie.

WTC 7

1. Also, statements from individuals used by truthers to "prove" their point have routinely been proven false by these exact individuals. Example: Larry Silverstein has said that by "pull" he did not mean to demolish the building. Truthers use a video clip of firefighters to say that there were explosive devices that were found at the WTC. However, the clip they use to "prove" their point is incomplete. When one does further research, the clip continues to show firefighters saying that explosives devices were reported at the high school....not WTC 7. It has also been proven that "pull" is not only used by firefighters to mean to "pull" people from a building, but also to be used in civil engineering terms of actually attaching cables to a building and shimming it one direction or another to make sure it does not fall in a certain direction. FURTHERMORE: It would not matter if WTC 7 was actually demolished. Aside from a crazy notion (and no proof) that the government wanted to get rid of evidence of the conspiracy, there is no reason to believe that the government would want to demolsh the building. If the building WERE demolished, it would most likely have been due to safety factors. Would any of YOU go to work in that building after this event? NOPE. Buildings are labeled inefficient and unstable all of the time and then brought down. So even if there were sufficient evidence that the building was demolished (which there isn't) it wouldn't bother me any.

In conclusion I'll say, once again, that many truthers claim that this VAST number of engineers and architects have come foreward with this petititon to start a new investigation.

1. "VAST" is slightly incorrect. There are approximately 10 million people in the U.S. that have architecture and engineering degrees.... A mere 2500 worldwide have signed this petition that the truthers are so proud of. 2500 out of 10 million does not numerically warrant anything. Let's not also forget that ALOT of these 2500 "so-called" engineers are not even structural engineers. If the 9/11 demolition theory were absolutely and irrevutable true, then you would most certainly have more engineers and architects coming forward. And 9/11 Truth and 9/11 Inside Job, don't post me a list of 200 engineers to prove your point, or a list of firefighters, or a list of military men. And don't post me the list of 2500 petition signers, because I've already stated that these numbers are a pin-drop in the ocean.

2. Steven E Jones' theory was rejected by all of his collegues and eventually releived from his duties at Brigham Young. His collegues reviewed his "theory" and "evidence" and eventually said he was nuts.

3. Truthers also claim that the hi-jackers were hired by the government to carry out these attacks. This is an upsurd notion. The vast majority of the hijackers were fro Suadi Arabia. Why would the government hire people from an allied nation? Surely a government with the capability to carry out these precise attacks would be smart enough to hire people from a country that hates us.... It just doesn't add up.

Truthers have found no "smoking-gun" in regards to the 9/11 attacks. Everything they've posted as "proof" are simply speculations. You can usually tell that by debating with one. You show them actual evidence refuting their theory, and they say..."Well maybe they did it because of this" or "What if the government wanted that to happen?"

Are there things the government doesn't want us to know? Sure. There always has and there always will be. Does this mean that everythign that happens is caused and orchestrated by the government (or associates--for the truthers)? NO . 9/11 has not been proven to be an inside job...period.

KSM will be found guilty of being the mastermind of 9/11. It will be proven. Watch, the day after, you'll have retards posting that Bush/Cheney was behind it.

They love attention almost as much as they hate this country.

You're right. There's a reason why they call it a "conspiracy."

The problem with the entire theory is that it doesn't hold up without a reasonable doubt. Even the smalles pieces of their puzzle have not been proven to be true, therefore, how could the whole concept of 9/11 being government initiated by true?

I think the biggest government "misleading" in relation to 9/11 is blowback. I believe 9/11 were our unintended consequences of foreign military operations that we don't know about. These terrorists attack us based on things our government does overseas that we are kept in the dark about. So when these things happen, we try to figure out why they hate us rather than try to figure out what we did to make them hate us. I think this is the real issue behind these terrorist attacks. Could things our government has done in the middle-east contributed to the atmosphere that breeds these types of attacks? sure.... Did our government carry out these attacks on it's own people? No. It's counter-productive....

 

[candycorn]

Look, nothing is wrong with another investigation. However, I've said before that even if there was another investigation, 9/11 truthers would not be satisfied unless it was done by people of their choosing. They would not believe anything coming from anyone else. Therefore, anyone they would choose to do it would already bring some biased to the table. Our lovely climatologists are living and breathing proof that people with biased views towards an issue are not the ones to conduct the experiments and make the models.

Here are some facts that, so far, have not warranted a new investigation IMO.


Pentagon
1. Bodies of passengers were found at the crashsite at the Pentagon. (I doubt the miltary loaded them all aboard a cruise missle.)
2. DNA has linked these remains to the people on the plane that hit the Pentagon.
3. There are literally hundreds of eyewitnesses that saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Not only from the freeway, but some from the actual lawn and parking areas of the Pentagon.
4. The fact there has been no substantial evidence of a conspiracy regarding the Pentagon attack, this (by the law of probability) makes it more likely that the WTC attacks were not some kind of a conspiracy also.

WTC Towers

1. Actual video and audio of the towers falling do not support he initiation of a controlled demolition. (Truthers say that the building fell "like" a building being demolished; however, there were not demolition explosions, no evidence AT ALL that there was any kind of demolition explosives.) Truthers claim that maybe Thermite was used to "cut" the beams. They try to prove this theory by showing beams behind firefighters that are "neatly" cut in a downward angle, suggesting that thermite was used. This is easily disproven because metal workers at ground-zero have been photographed actually cutting these beams at the same angle so that the steel beams would fall a certain way without endangering anyone.
2. Truthers also claim that "explosions" were heard before the building collapsed. There are NUMEROUS things that can cause explosions or the sound of such. Electrical swithgears, transformers, and large electrical fuses shorting out, expanding and contracting steel, and let's not forget the giant burning planes atop the towers. It has been proven that a plane burning alone in a field will explode and continue to explode for a long time while it is burning. You can look the video up on youtube. Aside from that, the sheer weight of the building snapping linkages in the steel beams are would be enough to cause significant popping and smalle "explosion" sounds upon the buildings initial descent.

3. The existenece of molten metal and the "melting steel" theory was also disproven. The planes entire exterior is made of aluminum. Also, there were THOUSANDS of desks, file cabinets, and other metals (not made of pure steel) within the building that would have easily melted and become molten in nature.

4. Suggesting that a building falling similar to a controlled demolition is not something that signifies that a building was demolished professionally. For some reason, truthers seem to think that gravity doesn't exist and that the building should have tipped over like a domino. Or at least withered away from left to right like a sand mummy in a Hollywood movie.

WTC 7

1. Also, statements from individuals used by truthers to "prove" their point have routinely been proven false by these exact individuals. Example: Larry Silverstein has said that by "pull" he did not mean to demolish the building. Truthers use a video clip of firefighters to say that there were explosive devices that were found at the WTC. However, the clip they use to "prove" their point is incomplete. When one does further research, the clip continues to show firefighters saying that explosives devices were reported at the high school....not WTC 7. It has also been proven that "pull" is not only used by firefighters to mean to "pull" people from a building, but also to be used in civil engineering terms of actually attaching cables to a building and shimming it one direction or another to make sure it does not fall in a certain direction. FURTHERMORE: It would not matter if WTC 7 was actually demolished. Aside from a crazy notion (and no proof) that the government wanted to get rid of evidence of the conspiracy, there is no reason to believe that the government would want to demolsh the building. If the building WERE demolished, it would most likely have been due to safety factors. Would any of YOU go to work in that building after this event? NOPE. Buildings are labeled inefficient and unstable all of the time and then brought down. So even if there were sufficient evidence that the building was demolished (which there isn't) it wouldn't bother me any.

In conclusion I'll say, once again, that many truthers claim that this VAST number of engineers and architects have come foreward with this petititon to start a new investigation.

1. "VAST" is slightly incorrect. There are approximately 10 million people in the U.S. that have architecture and engineering degrees.... A mere 2500 worldwide have signed this petition that the truthers are so proud of. 2500 out of 10 million does not numerically warrant anything. Let's not also forget that ALOT of these 2500 "so-called" engineers are not even structural engineers. If the 9/11 demolition theory were absolutely and irrevutable true, then you would most certainly have more engineers and architects coming forward. And 9/11 Truth and 9/11 Inside Job, don't post me a list of 200 engineers to prove your point, or a list of firefighters, or a list of military men. And don't post me the list of 2500 petition signers, because I've already stated that these numbers are a pin-drop in the ocean.

2. Steven E Jones' theory was rejected by all of his collegues and eventually releived from his duties at Brigham Young. His collegues reviewed his "theory" and "evidence" and eventually said he was nuts.

3. Truthers also claim that the hi-jackers were hired by the government to carry out these attacks. This is an upsurd notion. The vast majority of the hijackers were fro Suadi Arabia. Why would the government hire people from an allied nation? Surely a government with the capability to carry out these precise attacks would be smart enough to hire people from a country that hates us.... It just doesn't add up.

Truthers have found no "smoking-gun" in regards to the 9/11 attacks. Everything they've posted as "proof" are simply speculations. You can usually tell that by debating with one. You show them actual evidence refuting their theory, and they say..."Well maybe they did it because of this" or "What if the government wanted that to happen?"

Are there things the government doesn't want us to know? Sure. There always has and there always will be. Does this mean that everythign that happens is caused and orchestrated by the government (or associates--for the truthers)? NO . 9/11 has not been proven to be an inside job...period.

KSM will be found guilty of being the mastermind of 9/11. It will be proven. Watch, the day after, you'll have retards posting that Bush/Cheney was behind it.

They love attention almost as much as they hate this country.

You're right. There's a reason why they call it a "conspiracy."

The problem with the entire theory is that it doesn't hold up without a reasonable doubt. Even the smalles pieces of their puzzle have not been proven to be true, therefore, how could the whole concept of 9/11 being government initiated by true?

I think the biggest government "misleading" in relation to 9/11 is blowback. I believe 9/11 were our unintended consequences of foreign military operations that we don't know about. These terrorists attack us based on things our government does overseas that we are kept in the dark about. So when these things happen, we try to figure out why they hate us rather than try to figure out what we did to make them hate us. I think this is the real issue behind these terrorist attacks. Could things our government has done in the middle-east contributed to the atmosphere that breeds these types of attacks? sure.... Did our government carry out these attacks on it's own people? No. It's counter-productive....

I take a different view;

If you're radicalized, you're not rational. No amount of reasoning will work on a Mohammed Atta or Hani Hanjour or the other 18 hijackers. I don't wonder why they hate us; I don't care. Those who benefit from the radicalization will always find something to hate about us so why wonder about it?

We'll be hated whether or not we're there or not militarily. If we were to pull out all of our troops tomorrow, they'd hate our industries that "raper their land." If those pulled out as well, they'd hate our businesses that "obscure their culture". If those pulled out; they'd hate our ideals that "corrupt their youth."

Not all Islam, radicalized Islam. Of the radicals, the hate mongers will be able to find a few that will take the next step to operational deployment. Hence Atta, terror cells, and 9/11, 3/11, 7/11. The same thing happened with Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nicholls. They were not Muslim obviously but they were no less radical? The difference--the only difference is that they couldn't be turned (and likely were not tried to be turned) to hurting the general public; hence the Federal Building in OKC which did hurt the gen pop but as collateral damage.

In my view; the resounding echo of 9/11 is how quickly the country went back to sleep after this wake-up call. Picked up a recent Atlantic Monthly magazine while getting my Jag serviced the other morning and read an article about General Aviation: I'll cut and paste it here and embolden the salient portions: Private Plane, Public Menace - Magazine - The Atlantic

Fifteen minutes after leaving Manhattan, we arrived at the airport gate. A private security guard asked my friend for the tail number of our plane. He provided the number—or he provided a few digits of the number—and we were waved through, without an identification check. The plane, I should point out, didn’t belong to my friend; it belonged to a company with which my friend’s business does business. We drove to the terminal—operated by Signature Flight Support, a leading provider of general-aviation services—where we met our co-pilot, who escorted us to the plane.

“You’re Mr. Goldba?” the co-pilot said to me.

“It’s Goldberg,” I said.

“Okay, the e-mail must have gotten cut off or something.”

We continued to the plane. I asked my friend—let’s refer to him as “Osama bin La”—if there would be any security check whatsoever before we went wheels-up. He laughed. “I think the law says we have to pat each other down.”

“Do these pilots know you well?” I asked. “Is that why they trust you to bring me along?”

He first met them that morning, he said, when they flew him to Teterboro.

We climbed aboard the eight-seat twin-engine plane. The pilot greeted us, took my bag from me, and placed it on a seat. I noticed that no door separated the cabin from the cockpit.

We took off a few minutes later and headed south, in the direction of the Pentagon, the White House, and the United States Capitol complex.

“So let’s just say that I’m a terrorist pilot,” I said, “and I have a bag filled with handguns and I shoot these two pilots and then I take control of the plane and steer it into the headquarters of the CIA,” near which we would soon be flying. “What’s stopping me?”

“There’s nothing stopping you,” my friend said. “All you need is money to buy a plane, or a charter.”

Luckily for America, I am not a terrorist, I did not kill the pilots, and I did not steer the plane into the headquarters of the CIA. Nor did I pack my bag with Semtex or a dirty bomb. Instead, I occupied myself by taking free candy and bottles of Evian from the plane’s endless stock of free candy and Evian, which reminded me, as if I needed reminding, that it is better to be rich than poor.

We landed at Dulles International Airport about 40 minutes after we took off. We said good night to the pilots and walked across the tarmac. On the way, we passed far bigger planes than the one on which we had flown: 20- and 30-seat private jets, of obviously significant weight and fuel-storage capacity. Of course, one can charter 757s and 777s for private use as well.

I’ve been writing for years about the TSA, and about the uneven and unthinking methods it employs to secure our nation’s commercial airports. I had been under the impression that the TSA stationed personnel at many general-*aviation terminals, but it typically does not. The general-aviation industry is almost entirely “self-regulated.” The TSA has proposed that it be allowed to impose certain security measures on private jets, such as requiring operators to ensure that their passengers are not on the no-fly list, but for now the agency screens only those Americans who cannot afford to fly on private planes. The TSA administrator, John Pistole, suggested he sees a less substantial threat from general aviation than he does in the commercial realm, and the general- aviation “community” is not enthusiastic about government regulation. “Clearly the general-aviation community has a lot of equities and interest in our rules,” he told me, delicately. The TSA does, however, distribute helpful tips to those who work at private- aviation airports, including, “Always lock your aircraft.” And there is this warning: call 911 if you happen to notice “pilots appearing to be under the control of others.”

I am not a terrorist, but I do share one goal with al-Qaeda: I too would like to have a pilot under my control. But, like most Americans, and presumably unlike al-Qaeda, I am not quite rich enough to buy my way out of airport security.

Jeffrey Goldberg is a national correspondent for The Atlantic.

This is the real governmental crime. No accounting for private planes? From November 2010, a cbsnews.com web article was titled:

Only 1/5 of All Air Cargo Screened for Bombs

Read more: Only 1/5 of All Air Cargo Screened for Bombs - CBS News

During my salad days; I "bricked out" many an aircraft with freight. To expand a little, the FAA relies on a bullshit "known agent" plan whereby they will pre-screen you and everything you submit after that is pre-cleared. Uh huh...so if a freight forwarder hires a guy the guy can put anything he wants on skids or in the igloos (the internal carriers on the planes) and since Forward Air or whatever is a "known agent", maybe 1 in 5 of packages submitted will be screened. Maybe.

This is a total sham and its governmental malpractice that such a condition still exists.

The crying-ass shame is that it is quite easy (comparatively) to raise money for more inspectors. Landing fees, air fuel service charges, airport occupancy taxes for the FBO...would pay for more inspectors.

We know you can't inspect every box on every plane. But 1 in 5? No screening of General (private) aircraft at all? Truly an American tragedy waiting to happen.

We rolled over and hit the snooze button after the 9/11 wake up call. How sad.
I'm hoping that a skilled prosecutor will use the upcoming trial and conviction of KSM to sound the alarm again.

 

[BrianH]

KSM will be found guilty of being the mastermind of 9/11. It will be proven. Watch, the day after, you'll have retards posting that Bush/Cheney was behind it.

They love attention almost as much as they hate this country.

You're right. There's a reason why they call it a "conspiracy."

The problem with the entire theory is that it doesn't hold up without a reasonable doubt. Even the smalles pieces of their puzzle have not been proven to be true, therefore, how could the whole concept of 9/11 being government initiated by true?

I think the biggest government "misleading" in relation to 9/11 is blowback. I believe 9/11 were our unintended consequences of foreign military operations that we don't know about. These terrorists attack us based on things our government does overseas that we are kept in the dark about. So when these things happen, we try to figure out why they hate us rather than try to figure out what we did to make them hate us. I think this is the real issue behind these terrorist attacks. Could things our government has done in the middle-east contributed to the atmosphere that breeds these types of attacks? sure.... Did our government carry out these attacks on it's own people? No. It's counter-productive....

I take a different view;

If you're radicalized, you're not rational. No amount of reasoning will work on a Mohammed Atta or Hani Hanjour or the other 18 hijackers. I don't wonder why they hate us; I don't care. Those who benefit from the radicalization will always find something to hate about us so why wonder about it?

We'll be hated whether or not we're there or not militarily. If we were to pull out all of our troops tomorrow, they'd hate our industries that "raper their land." If those pulled out as well, they'd hate our businesses that "obscure their culture". If those pulled out; they'd hate our ideals that "corrupt their youth."

Not all Islam, radicalized Islam. Of the radicals, the hate mongers will be able to find a few that will take the next step to operational deployment. Hence Atta, terror cells, and 9/11, 3/11, 7/11. The same thing happened with Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nicholls. They were not Muslim obviously but they were no less radical? The difference--the only difference is that they couldn't be turned (and likely were not tried to be turned) to hurting the general public; hence the Federal Building in OKC which did hurt the gen pop but as collateral damage.

In my view; the resounding echo of 9/11 is how quickly the country went back to sleep after this wake-up call. Picked up a recent Atlantic Monthly magazine while getting my Jag serviced the other morning and read an article about General Aviation: I'll cut and paste it here and embolden the salient portions: Private Plane, Public Menace - Magazine - The Atlantic

Fifteen minutes after leaving Manhattan, we arrived at the airport gate. A private security guard asked my friend for the tail number of our plane. He provided the number—or he provided a few digits of the number—and we were waved through, without an identification check. The plane, I should point out, didn’t belong to my friend; it belonged to a company with which my friend’s business does business. We drove to the terminal—operated by Signature Flight Support, a leading provider of general-aviation services—where we met our co-pilot, who escorted us to the plane.

“You’re Mr. Goldba?” the co-pilot said to me.

“It’s Goldberg,” I said.

“Okay, the e-mail must have gotten cut off or something.”

We continued to the plane. I asked my friend—let’s refer to him as “Osama bin La”—if there would be any security check whatsoever before we went wheels-up. He laughed. “I think the law says we have to pat each other down.”

“Do these pilots know you well?” I asked. “Is that why they trust you to bring me along?”

He first met them that morning, he said, when they flew him to Teterboro.

We climbed aboard the eight-seat twin-engine plane. The pilot greeted us, took my bag from me, and placed it on a seat. I noticed that no door separated the cabin from the cockpit.

We took off a few minutes later and headed south, in the direction of the Pentagon, the White House, and the United States Capitol complex.

“So let’s just say that I’m a terrorist pilot,” I said, “and I have a bag filled with handguns and I shoot these two pilots and then I take control of the plane and steer it into the headquarters of the CIA,” near which we would soon be flying. “What’s stopping me?”

“There’s nothing stopping you,” my friend said. “All you need is money to buy a plane, or a charter.”

Luckily for America, I am not a terrorist, I did not kill the pilots, and I did not steer the plane into the headquarters of the CIA. Nor did I pack my bag with Semtex or a dirty bomb. Instead, I occupied myself by taking free candy and bottles of Evian from the plane’s endless stock of free candy and Evian, which reminded me, as if I needed reminding, that it is better to be rich than poor.

We landed at Dulles International Airport about 40 minutes after we took off. We said good night to the pilots and walked across the tarmac. On the way, we passed far bigger planes than the one on which we had flown: 20- and 30-seat private jets, of obviously significant weight and fuel-storage capacity. Of course, one can charter 757s and 777s for private use as well.

I’ve been writing for years about the TSA, and about the uneven and unthinking methods it employs to secure our nation’s commercial airports. I had been under the impression that the TSA stationed personnel at many general-*aviation terminals, but it typically does not. The general-aviation industry is almost entirely “self-regulated.” The TSA has proposed that it be allowed to impose certain security measures on private jets, such as requiring operators to ensure that their passengers are not on the no-fly list, but for now the agency screens only those Americans who cannot afford to fly on private planes. The TSA administrator, John Pistole, suggested he sees a less substantial threat from general aviation than he does in the commercial realm, and the general- aviation “community” is not enthusiastic about government regulation. “Clearly the general-aviation community has a lot of equities and interest in our rules,” he told me, delicately. The TSA does, however, distribute helpful tips to those who work at private- aviation airports, including, “Always lock your aircraft.” And there is this warning: call 911 if you happen to notice “pilots appearing to be under the control of others.”

I am not a terrorist, but I do share one goal with al-Qaeda: I too would like to have a pilot under my control. But, like most Americans, and presumably unlike al-Qaeda, I am not quite rich enough to buy my way out of airport security.

Jeffrey Goldberg is a national correspondent for The Atlantic.

This is the real governmental crime. No accounting for private planes? From November 2010, a cbsnews.com web article was titled:

Only 1/5 of All Air Cargo Screened for Bombs

Read more: Only 1/5 of All Air Cargo Screened for Bombs - CBS News

During my salad days; I "bricked out" many an aircraft with freight. To expand a little, the FAA relies on a bullshit "known agent" plan whereby they will pre-screen you and everything you submit after that is pre-cleared. Uh huh...so if a freight forwarder hires a guy the guy can put anything he wants on skids or in the igloos (the internal carriers on the planes) and since Forward Air or whatever is a "known agent", maybe 1 in 5 of packages submitted will be screened. Maybe.

This is a total sham and its governmental malpractice that such a condition still exists.

The crying-ass shame is that it is quite easy (comparatively) to raise money for more inspectors. Landing fees, air fuel service charges, airport occupancy taxes for the FBO...would pay for more inspectors.

We know you can't inspect every box on every plane. But 1 in 5? No screening of General (private) aircraft at all? Truly an American tragedy waiting to happen.

We rolled over and hit the snooze button after the 9/11 wake up call. How sad.
I'm hoping that a skilled prosecutor will use the upcoming trial and conviction of KSM to sound the alarm again.

I wasn't really intended to get that in-depth with you on the subject. I'm not disagreeing with you that a radical, in his/her present state-of-mind, is someone who cannot be reasoned with. My point is that, would there be this large number of radicalized terrorist bent on destroying the United States had the United States kept it's nose out of middle-east affairs starting early on in our nation's history? Why are these terrorist radicalized? They didn't wake up one day and say, "You know what? I think I'll hate the United States." They weren't born that way. It's not in their DNA. Whoever taught them their "message" was also NOT born being radical. Someone who got really put-out by the U.S. or western world took it upon themselves to be radicalized and started this mess. Back during WWI and WWII other countries loved the U.S. We kept our nose out of everyone's business, but then wrecked shop when the time was right. You didn't have these recurrent terrorists attacks before then. With our current foreign policy, a Saudi Arabian can take a dump in the desert and it's somehow relevant to our national interests. Have you ever researched how these radical clerics recruit young kids? They start by convincing them that the western world (in particular the U.S.) is killing muslims world-wide and are against the muslim way of life. They also take in kids whose parents were killed by U.S. bombings, battle casualties, etc... They use their own propoganda to recruit these kids, and then mix it with misinterpretations of the Qoran.

We have radicalized Christians and radicalized anti-government loons who grew up learning that the government is out to get them. Or the radicalized Chrisitians who teach their youth misinterpretations of the Bible and use it as justification to blow up office buildings. Terrorism against the U.S. is a direct effect to us being involved in the Middle East. Had we kept our nose out of their part of the world, we'd have a different situation today. You can quote me on that.

 

[candycorn]

You're right. There's a reason why they call it a "conspiracy."

The problem with the entire theory is that it doesn't hold up without a reasonable doubt. Even the smalles pieces of their puzzle have not been proven to be true, therefore, how could the whole concept of 9/11 being government initiated by true?

I think the biggest government "misleading" in relation to 9/11 is blowback. I believe 9/11 were our unintended consequences of foreign military operations that we don't know about. These terrorists attack us based on things our government does overseas that we are kept in the dark about. So when these things happen, we try to figure out why they hate us rather than try to figure out what we did to make them hate us. I think this is the real issue behind these terrorist attacks. Could things our government has done in the middle-east contributed to the atmosphere that breeds these types of attacks? sure.... Did our government carry out these attacks on it's own people? No. It's counter-productive....

I take a different view;

If you're radicalized, you're not rational. No amount of reasoning will work on a Mohammed Atta or Hani Hanjour or the other 18 hijackers. I don't wonder why they hate us; I don't care. Those who benefit from the radicalization will always find something to hate about us so why wonder about it?

We'll be hated whether or not we're there or not militarily. If we were to pull out all of our troops tomorrow, they'd hate our industries that "raper their land." If those pulled out as well, they'd hate our businesses that "obscure their culture". If those pulled out; they'd hate our ideals that "corrupt their youth."

Not all Islam, radicalized Islam. Of the radicals, the hate mongers will be able to find a few that will take the next step to operational deployment. Hence Atta, terror cells, and 9/11, 3/11, 7/11. The same thing happened with Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nicholls. They were not Muslim obviously but they were no less radical? The difference--the only difference is that they couldn't be turned (and likely were not tried to be turned) to hurting the general public; hence the Federal Building in OKC which did hurt the gen pop but as collateral damage.

In my view; the resounding echo of 9/11 is how quickly the country went back to sleep after this wake-up call. Picked up a recent Atlantic Monthly magazine while getting my Jag serviced the other morning and read an article about General Aviation: I'll cut and paste it here and embolden the salient portions: Private Plane, Public Menace - Magazine - The Atlantic

Fifteen minutes after leaving Manhattan, we arrived at the airport gate. A private security guard asked my friend for the tail number of our plane. He provided the number—or he provided a few digits of the number—and we were waved through, without an identification check. The plane, I should point out, didn’t belong to my friend; it belonged to a company with which my friend’s business does business. We drove to the terminal—operated by Signature Flight Support, a leading provider of general-aviation services—where we met our co-pilot, who escorted us to the plane.

“You’re Mr. Goldba?” the co-pilot said to me.

“It’s Goldberg,” I said.

“Okay, the e-mail must have gotten cut off or something.”

We continued to the plane. I asked my friend—let’s refer to him as “Osama bin La”—if there would be any security check whatsoever before we went wheels-up. He laughed. “I think the law says we have to pat each other down.”

“Do these pilots know you well?” I asked. “Is that why they trust you to bring me along?”

He first met them that morning, he said, when they flew him to Teterboro.

We climbed aboard the eight-seat twin-engine plane. The pilot greeted us, took my bag from me, and placed it on a seat. I noticed that no door separated the cabin from the cockpit.

We took off a few minutes later and headed south, in the direction of the Pentagon, the White House, and the United States Capitol complex.

“So let’s just say that I’m a terrorist pilot,” I said, “and I have a bag filled with handguns and I shoot these two pilots and then I take control of the plane and steer it into the headquarters of the CIA,” near which we would soon be flying. “What’s stopping me?”

“There’s nothing stopping you,” my friend said. “All you need is money to buy a plane, or a charter.”

Luckily for America, I am not a terrorist, I did not kill the pilots, and I did not steer the plane into the headquarters of the CIA. Nor did I pack my bag with Semtex or a dirty bomb. Instead, I occupied myself by taking free candy and bottles of Evian from the plane’s endless stock of free candy and Evian, which reminded me, as if I needed reminding, that it is better to be rich than poor.

We landed at Dulles International Airport about 40 minutes after we took off. We said good night to the pilots and walked across the tarmac. On the way, we passed far bigger planes than the one on which we had flown: 20- and 30-seat private jets, of obviously significant weight and fuel-storage capacity. Of course, one can charter 757s and 777s for private use as well.

I’ve been writing for years about the TSA, and about the uneven and unthinking methods it employs to secure our nation’s commercial airports. I had been under the impression that the TSA stationed personnel at many general-*aviation terminals, but it typically does not. The general-aviation industry is almost entirely “self-regulated.” The TSA has proposed that it be allowed to impose certain security measures on private jets, such as requiring operators to ensure that their passengers are not on the no-fly list, but for now the agency screens only those Americans who cannot afford to fly on private planes. The TSA administrator, John Pistole, suggested he sees a less substantial threat from general aviation than he does in the commercial realm, and the general- aviation “community” is not enthusiastic about government regulation. “Clearly the general-aviation community has a lot of equities and interest in our rules,” he told me, delicately. The TSA does, however, distribute helpful tips to those who work at private- aviation airports, including, “Always lock your aircraft.” And there is this warning: call 911 if you happen to notice “pilots appearing to be under the control of others.”

I am not a terrorist, but I do share one goal with al-Qaeda: I too would like to have a pilot under my control. But, like most Americans, and presumably unlike al-Qaeda, I am not quite rich enough to buy my way out of airport security.

Jeffrey Goldberg is a national correspondent for The Atlantic.

This is the real governmental crime. No accounting for private planes? From November 2010, a cbsnews.com web article was titled:

Only 1/5 of All Air Cargo Screened for Bombs

Read more: Only 1/5 of All Air Cargo Screened for Bombs - CBS News

During my salad days; I "bricked out" many an aircraft with freight. To expand a little, the FAA relies on a bullshit "known agent" plan whereby they will pre-screen you and everything you submit after that is pre-cleared. Uh huh...so if a freight forwarder hires a guy the guy can put anything he wants on skids or in the igloos (the internal carriers on the planes) and since Forward Air or whatever is a "known agent", maybe 1 in 5 of packages submitted will be screened. Maybe.

This is a total sham and its governmental malpractice that such a condition still exists.

The crying-ass shame is that it is quite easy (comparatively) to raise money for more inspectors. Landing fees, air fuel service charges, airport occupancy taxes for the FBO...would pay for more inspectors.

We know you can't inspect every box on every plane. But 1 in 5? No screening of General (private) aircraft at all? Truly an American tragedy waiting to happen.

We rolled over and hit the snooze button after the 9/11 wake up call. How sad.
I'm hoping that a skilled prosecutor will use the upcoming trial and conviction of KSM to sound the alarm again.

I wasn't really intended to get that in-depth with you on the subject.
I'm not disagreeing with you that a radical, in his/her present state-of-mind, is someone who cannot be reasoned with.

Oh, I didn't take exception at what you were saying and I don't disagree with you either.


In my view...right or wrong...
The only thing we need to know about radical Islam is this; how to destroy it before it tries to destroy us. Worrying about why they hate us is an interesting intellectual exercise but I submit that the hatred is a product of ignorance. You'll note that the social media is credited with toppling regimes in the Middle East. When all of the facts are out there--the facts that come from being able to access a variety of sources--Democracy is favored by the people.

 

[BrianH]

I take a different view;

If you're radicalized, you're not rational. No amount of reasoning will work on a Mohammed Atta or Hani Hanjour or the other 18 hijackers. I don't wonder why they hate us; I don't care. Those who benefit from the radicalization will always find something to hate about us so why wonder about it?

We'll be hated whether or not we're there or not militarily. If we were to pull out all of our troops tomorrow, they'd hate our industries that "raper their land." If those pulled out as well, they'd hate our businesses that "obscure their culture". If those pulled out; they'd hate our ideals that "corrupt their youth."

Not all Islam, radicalized Islam. Of the radicals, the hate mongers will be able to find a few that will take the next step to operational deployment. Hence Atta, terror cells, and 9/11, 3/11, 7/11. The same thing happened with Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nicholls. They were not Muslim obviously but they were no less radical? The difference--the only difference is that they couldn't be turned (and likely were not tried to be turned) to hurting the general public; hence the Federal Building in OKC which did hurt the gen pop but as collateral damage.

In my view; the resounding echo of 9/11 is how quickly the country went back to sleep after this wake-up call. Picked up a recent Atlantic Monthly magazine while getting my Jag serviced the other morning and read an article about General Aviation: I'll cut and paste it here and embolden the salient portions: Private Plane, Public Menace - Magazine - The Atlantic




This is the real governmental crime. No accounting for private planes? From November 2010, a cbsnews.com web article was titled:

Only 1/5 of All Air Cargo Screened for Bombs

Read more: Only 1/5 of All Air Cargo Screened for Bombs - CBS News

During my salad days; I "bricked out" many an aircraft with freight. To expand a little, the FAA relies on a bullshit "known agent" plan whereby they will pre-screen you and everything you submit after that is pre-cleared. Uh huh...so if a freight forwarder hires a guy the guy can put anything he wants on skids or in the igloos (the internal carriers on the planes) and since Forward Air or whatever is a "known agent", maybe 1 in 5 of packages submitted will be screened. Maybe.

This is a total sham and its governmental malpractice that such a condition still exists.

The crying-ass shame is that it is quite easy (comparatively) to raise money for more inspectors. Landing fees, air fuel service charges, airport occupancy taxes for the FBO...would pay for more inspectors.

We know you can't inspect every box on every plane. But 1 in 5? No screening of General (private) aircraft at all? Truly an American tragedy waiting to happen.

We rolled over and hit the snooze button after the 9/11 wake up call. How sad.
I'm hoping that a skilled prosecutor will use the upcoming trial and conviction of KSM to sound the alarm again.

I wasn't really intended to get that in-depth with you on the subject.
I'm not disagreeing with you that a radical, in his/her present state-of-mind, is someone who cannot be reasoned with.

Oh, I didn't take exception at what you were saying and I don't disagree with you either.


In my view...right or wrong...
The only thing we need to know about radical Islam is this; how to destroy it before it tries to destroy us. Worrying about why they hate us is an interesting intellectual exercise but I submit that the hatred is a product of ignorance. You'll note that the social media is credited with toppling regimes in the Middle East. When all of the facts are out there--the facts that come from being able to access a variety of sources--Democracy is favored by the people.

Agree with that... Good Post

 

[JiggsCasey]

I wasn't really intended to get that in-depth with you on the subject.
I'm not disagreeing with you that a radical, in his/her present state-of-mind, is someone who cannot be reasoned with.

Oh, I didn't take exception at what you were saying and I don't disagree with you either.


In my view...right or wrong...
The only thing we need to know about radical Islam is this; how to destroy it before it tries to destroy us. Worrying about why they hate us is an interesting intellectual exercise but I submit that the hatred is a product of ignorance. You'll note that the social media is credited with toppling regimes in the Middle East. When all of the facts are out there--the facts that come from being able to access a variety of sources--Democracy is favored by the people.

Agree with that... Good Post

No, it's not. It's fundamentalist pablum, drenched in irony. It's also our own assured, mutual destruction. How is this different from religious fascist ideology? Seriously?

Chris Hedges wrote [ame="http://www.amazon.com/American-Fascists-Christian-Right-America/dp/0743284437"]an absolutely great book[/ame] about these kinds of people.

It's a completely global economy. You guys understand this by now, yes? I mean, you usually (to a man) advocate the global free market at every turn, so it's baffling how you so often fail to consider the ramifications of wider warfare with sovereign Muslim nations. You can't just wipe out a billion people because you can't overcome your irrational fears of them and the funny way they pray. Get over yourselves.

This above is the embodiment of the mentality that has us in this mess in the first place. For hundreds of years, actually. And guess what? The most radical among them wonder the same crap about you. "They hate us, and I don't care. Gotta destroy them first."

This isn't 1936, guys. Oceans can't buffer us anymore. Not from cyber/trade war. It is an international corporate food conveyor belt that relies on immense quantities of petrol for its "just in time" delivery service. A lot of people will starve if your team is allowed to go all Cowboy again. Gawd, if you hawks had your wish, and decided to keep playing the pre-emption card, and struck Iran, or "took over" Saudi, or some stupid such?. ... WTF do you think would happen to the global economy already teetering on the brink? Be honest with yourself. ...

Give it a rest with the Crusade talk. We can't afford it anyway, never could, even in 2002-2003. So you're gonna haveta face your irrational fears. They don't all hate us. Just the most crazy hard-liners among them. We most certainly have our own crazies to mirror them.

Proportionality matters. I think they've gotten the message at this point, and the response has been more than sufficient, at least at this point.

 

[BrianH]

Oh, I didn't take exception at what you were saying and I don't disagree with you either.


In my view...right or wrong...
The only thing we need to know about radical Islam is this; how to destroy it before it tries to destroy us. Worrying about why they hate us is an interesting intellectual exercise but I submit that the hatred is a product of ignorance. You'll note that the social media is credited with toppling regimes in the Middle East. When all of the facts are out there--the facts that come from being able to access a variety of sources--Democracy is favored by the people.

Agree with that... Good Post

No, it's not. It's fundamentalist pablum, drenched in irony. It's also our own assured, mutual destruction. How is this different from religious fascist ideology? Seriously?

Chris Hedges wrote [ame="http://www.amazon.com/American-Fascists-Christian-Right-America/dp/0743284437"]an absolutely great book[/ame] about these kinds of people.

It's a completely global economy. You guys understand this by now, yes? I mean, you usually (to a man) advocate the global free market at every turn, so it's baffling how you so often fail to consider the ramifications of wider warfare with sovereign Muslim nations. You can't just wipe out a billion people because you can't overcome your irrational fears of them and the funny way they pray. Get over yourselves.

This above is the embodiment of the mentality that has us in this mess in the first place. For hundreds of years, actually. And guess what? The most radical among them wonder the same crap about you. "They hate us, and I don't care. Gotta destroy them first."

This isn't 1936, guys. Oceans can't buffer us anymore. Not from cyber/trade war. It is an international corporate food conveyor belt that relies on immense quantities of petrol for its "just in time" delivery service. A lot of people will starve if your team is allowed to go all Cowboy again. Gawd, if you hawks had your wish, and decided to keep playing the pre-emption card, and struck Iran, or "took over" Saudi, or some stupid such?. ... WTF do you think would happen to the global economy already teetering on the brink? Be honest with yourself. ...

Give it a rest with the Crusade talk. We can't afford it anyway, never could, even in 2002-2003. So you're gonna haveta face your irrational fears. They don't all hate us. Just the most crazy hard-liners among them. We most certainly have our own crazies to mirror them.

Proportionality matters. I think they've gotten the message at this point, and the response has been more than sufficient, at least at this point.

You are nuttier than a squirrel turd.

You're assuming that I'm scared of all muslims...which is completely ignorant on your part. If you had read my earlier post, then you would have understood this point. I pointed out the reasons why muslim extremists are the way that they are. I pointed out that had we not gotten involved in the middle-east from the very beginning, then it's highly likely that we wouldn't have this problem today. I agreed with candycorn in his description of, and dealing with, radicals in their present state of mind. However, I did point out they were not born radical. They were brain-washed to hate everything western and assured by misinterpretion from their Holy book. It's the same way gang members recruit young kids here in the U.S.

Go back and read some of my posts before you post a knee-jerk reaction...

 

[candycorn]

Oh, I didn't take exception at what you were saying and I don't disagree with you either.


In my view...right or wrong...
The only thing we need to know about radical Islam is this; how to destroy it before it tries to destroy us. Worrying about why they hate us is an interesting intellectual exercise but I submit that the hatred is a product of ignorance. You'll note that the social media is credited with toppling regimes in the Middle East. When all of the facts are out there--the facts that come from being able to access a variety of sources--Democracy is favored by the people.

Agree with that... Good Post

No, it's not. It's fundamentalist pablum, drenched in irony. It's also our own assured, mutual destruction. How is this different from religious fascist ideology? Seriously?

Chris Hedges wrote [ame="http://www.amazon.com/American-Fascists-Christian-Right-America/dp/0743284437"]an absolutely great book[/ame] about these kinds of people.

It's a completely global economy. You guys understand this by now, yes? I mean, you usually (to a man) advocate the global free market at every turn, so it's baffling how you so often fail to consider the ramifications of wider warfare with sovereign Muslim nations. You can't just wipe out a billion people because you can't overcome your irrational fears of them and the funny way they pray. Get over yourselves.

This above is the embodiment of the mentality that has us in this mess in the first place. For hundreds of years, actually. And guess what? The most radical among them wonder the same crap about you. "They hate us, and I don't care. Gotta destroy them first."

This isn't 1936, guys. Oceans can't buffer us anymore. Not from cyber/trade war. It is an international corporate food conveyor belt that relies on immense quantities of petrol for its "just in time" delivery service. A lot of people will starve if your team is allowed to go all Cowboy again. Gawd, if you hawks had your wish, and decided to keep playing the pre-emption card, and struck Iran, or "took over" Saudi, or some stupid such?. ... WTF do you think would happen to the global economy already teetering on the brink? Be honest with yourself. ...

Give it a rest with the Crusade talk. We can't afford it anyway, never could, even in 2002-2003. So you're gonna haveta face your irrational fears. They don't all hate us. Just the most crazy hard-liners among them. We most certainly have our own crazies to mirror them.

Proportionality matters. I think they've gotten the message at this point, and the response has been more than sufficient, at least at this point.

I made the same point above. Just was able to do it without the snide and juvenile arrogance you show on every post.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Oh, I didn't take exception at what you were saying and I don't disagree with you either.


In my view...right or wrong...
The only thing we need to know about radical Islam is this; how to destroy it before it tries to destroy us. Worrying about why they hate us is an interesting intellectual exercise but I submit that the hatred is a product of ignorance. You'll note that the social media is credited with toppling regimes in the Middle East. When all of the facts are out there--the facts that come from being able to access a variety of sources--Democracy is favored by the people.

Agree with that... Good Post

No, it's not. It's fundamentalist pablum, drenched in irony. It's also our own assured, mutual destruction. How is this different from religious fascist ideology? Seriously?

Chris Hedges wrote [ame="http://www.amazon.com/American-Fascists-Christian-Right-America/dp/0743284437"]an absolutely great book[/ame] about these kinds of people.

It's a completely global economy. You guys understand this by now, yes? I mean, you usually (to a man) advocate the global free market at every turn, so it's baffling how you so often fail to consider the ramifications of wider warfare with sovereign Muslim nations. You can't just wipe out a billion people because you can't overcome your irrational fears of them and the funny way they pray. Get over yourselves.

This above is the embodiment of the mentality that has us in this mess in the first place. For hundreds of years, actually. And guess what? The most radical among them wonder the same crap about you. "They hate us, and I don't care. Gotta destroy them first."

This isn't 1936, guys. Oceans can't buffer us anymore. Not from cyber/trade war. It is an international corporate food conveyor belt that relies on immense quantities of petrol for its "just in time" delivery service. A lot of people will starve if your team is allowed to go all Cowboy again. Gawd, if you hawks had your wish, and decided to keep playing the pre-emption card, and struck Iran, or "took over" Saudi, or some stupid such?. ... WTF do you think would happen to the global economy already teetering on the brink? Be honest with yourself. ...

Give it a rest with the Crusade talk. We can't afford it anyway, never could, even in 2002-2003. So you're gonna haveta face your irrational fears. They don't all hate us. Just the most crazy hard-liners among them. We most certainly have our own crazies to mirror them.

Proportionality matters. I think they've gotten the message at this point, and the response has been more than sufficient, at least at this point.

You'll find out Jiggs if you hang out here long enough,these trolls wont read books you refer to them that exposes the governments fairy tale of 9/11.they only see what they want to see so they wont read books you refer to them or watch videos or read links you provide them with since it doesnt go along with their version of events.