9-11 Memorial Ceremony (Warning)

[Liebling:-)))]

Maybe you didn't carefully and completely read your links. Your links support everything that I posted. Your links support the government reports. Your links prove that Cloggy's post were wrong.

No, I do not prove Cloggy´s post wrong.

No I do not support government.

The photos prove everything in link and also what the people claimed against government but government denied people´s claim.

 

[Cloggy]

The planes in 2001 had built-in aircraft phones for passenger in-flight use, remember?

Yes, but this is about calls made from cell-phones!

And the "government" knew weeks (months?) ahead of time which people would be on the flights and who they would call, so they could have the recordings prepared, and somehow they even knew what the recipients of the calls would say so the doctored tapes could respond accordingly with the right words.

With that kind of system, you just speak and the voice is adjusted... You don't need to know in advance...

Regarding crash sites

So? Each aircraft accident is unique. The wreckage sites of no two will be the same. The circumstances of each one is totally different. If you notice, even your examples don't match each other.

If a plane hits an extremely reinforced building at full speed, fully fueled, nose first, how does that compare with planes that hit mountains, fields, cottages, and water at varying angles, payloads, amount of fuel onboard, and rates of descent?

I would hope you would see similarities: Big pieces. Water is as hard as concrete from that height. A mountain is HARDER than concrete..... The pictures show that for AA-77 and UA-99 there SHOULD be wreckage!....

But it was a special day, this 9/11.
Steel vaporizes at 100º, Towers spontnously collapse onto itself - the first - and ssince then last in history... 3 towers. Planes vaporize. Militairy aircraft, normally capable of intercepting a plane in 20 minutes can't do it in over an hour!

Must have been the weather...
___________________________________________________________________________
If we ASSUME, that makes an ASS out of U and ME !!!

 

[Cloggy]

all? I thought you doesn´t support the links where I provided in my previous posts because you support US government over people in your country... I´m surprised that you see the light from my links at last...

I´m with Cloggy on his most posts. I can see from the links that many people see the light that Government do something behind their people´s back. I also can tell from the links that both sides against each other - deny - etc. Americans deserved to know the truth what the Government doing.

Sorry Liebling.. The website explains the conspiricy theory and then argues against it.

It's good to read theses explanations, which are full of holes.
For instance.. About damage of WTC-7. They show a picture to illustrate there WAS damage when WTC-1/2 collapsed. They forget that with that picture they proof that the building didn't "Pancaked" since in that case there would not be debris flying so far away. They indirectly proof that explosion caused heavy fragments to be thrown so far. Even so. The debris is on the roof. Why would a building collapse...

Regarding the pentagon and for instance the defense system, they argue that there is no proof because there are no pictures of such a system.

Our first problem with this idea is that we've never, ever, at any point seen a reference to show that these missile batteries exist. Why no photos, no stories about them?

So, the theorie is unfounded. But they forget there's NO picture of a plane, but THAT WAS there!!??

With the freefall of the towers, they try to proof that it took 8 to 15 seconds. (Even though it shows that it did not) but OK, so it took 9.22 seconds. Close to free-fall.
With this they disprove the pancake theory automatically (that would have taken 100+ seconds).
So instead of giving an answer, they start looking at calculations and disproving them... So they do not disprove the theory.. they disprove the calculation (with a false assumption) and therefore the theory must be wrong.

You have to love these guy's!!
___________________________________________________________________________
If we ASSUME, that makes an ASS out of U and ME !!!

 

[Cloggy]

Why? I wasn't an eyewitness, and I'm not an engineer analyzing the evidence hands on. My "version" would have no more validity than your's.

Wrong. As an engineer, I do know about flashpoints, temperatures, conduction of heat by steel, structural integrety.

That's why I strongly doubt the official version.

You might not have a clue about it, and that's fine. But it's a shame that you ignore FACTS and hang on explanations that have no foundation.
___________________________________________________________________________
If we ASSUME, that makes an ASS out of U and ME !!!

 

[Reba]

Pentagon

It about Bush's best friend's Ted wife Barbara Olsen.

Barbara Olson

Moblies at Altitude

Mobiles at Altitude Part I

Mobiles at Altitude Part II

Here's some of the text from your links from 911Myths... Reading between the lies. (Also notice, the title of your link is "911 Myths...Reading between the lies." Your own link states that conspiracy myths are lies.)

So this appears nothing more than the type of contingency planning that's carried out everywhere, and as the Pentagon is right next to a major airport, it’s hardly a surprising choice of scenario. A November 2000 report provides more details...


...therefore the idea that Olson could not have made collect calls remains unproven.

...The “impossible” claim is most often associated with Professor AK Dewdney, in a study of his own called "Project Achilles". He actually tried making calls at various altitudes, and concluded that "cellphone calls from passenger aircraft are physically impossible above 8000 feet and and statistically unlikely below it". There are reasons to question Dewdney’s conclusions, though.

...EEE Spectrum even ran a test to check this, and discovered cellphones were being used within commercial aircraft cabins (and not just while taking off or landing, where altitudes will be lower):

we know that all the 9/11 planes did have their own built-in Airfone system, which would have no problems working at altitude (that's what they're for).

 

[Reba]

Yes, but this is about calls made from cell-phones!

Some of the calls were made from cell phones, and some from the in-flight phones.

With that kind of system, you just speak and the voice is adjusted... You don't need to know in advance...

You mean like the kids' Darth Vadar mask? You would still have to have the original voice on tape in advance in order to develope the sythetic voice. How could the "government" have all those voices prepped in time? You are really clutching at straws.

But it was a special day, this 9/11.
Steel vaporizes at 100º, Towers spontnously collapse onto itself - the first - and ssince then last in history... 3 towers. Planes vaporize. Militairy aircraft, normally capable of intercepting a plane in 20 minutes can't do it in over an hour!

You're right, it was a special day. There had never before been a similar attack, especially on those buildings.

 

[Reba]

Wrong. As an engineer, I do know about flashpoints, temperatures, conduction of heat by steel, structural integrety.

Fine, you can give your professional analysis of all the technical data that you have gathered. But that doesn't allow you to toss out eyewitness testimony, phone calls, and the results of other technical experts who have also analyzed the evidence, hands on.

But it's a shame that you ignore FACTS and hang on explanations that have no foundation.

I could say the same about you.

We don't agree on what constitutes a "fact".

 

[Reba]

Pentagon

It about Bush's best friend's Ted wife Barbara Olsen.

Barbara Olson

Moblies at Altitude

Mobiles at Altitude Part I

Mobiles at Altitude Part II

Here's some of the text from your links from 911Myths... Reading between the lies. (Also notice, the title of your link is "911 Myths...Reading between the lies." Your own link states that conspiracy myths are lies.)

So this appears nothing more than the type of contingency planning that's carried out everywhere, and as the Pentagon is right next to a major airport, it’s hardly a surprising choice of scenario. A November 2000 report provides more details...


...therefore the idea that Olson could not have made collect calls remains unproven.

...The “impossible” claim is most often associated with Professor AK Dewdney, in a study of his own called "Project Achilles". He actually tried making calls at various altitudes, and concluded that "cellphone calls from passenger aircraft are physically impossible above 8000 feet and and statistically unlikely below it". There are reasons to question Dewdney’s conclusions, though.

...EEE Spectrum even ran a test to check this, and discovered cellphones were being used within commercial aircraft cabins (and not just while taking off or landing, where altitudes will be lower):

we know that all the 9/11 planes did have their own built-in Airfone system, which would have no problems working at altitude (that's what they're for).

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Well I only provided the link where the government denied people´s suggestion, questions and thought.

 

[Cloggy]

Fine, you can give your professional analysis of all the technical data that you have gathered. But that doesn't allow you to toss out eyewitness testimony, phone calls, and the results of other technical experts who have also analyzed the evidence, hands on.

I don't want to talk about eye-witness since they divert the attention away from facts.
The main problem is that as soon as questions are asked, the government cries "conspiricy theory" (or makes someone cry that) and immediately it is treated as if these people are no patriots.
In my eye, these people ARE the patriots, because they care enough about their country to ask questions instead of just swallowing propaganda. They want to know why their loved-oned died.

Buildings don't just collapse on their own footprint.
Buildings based on steel frames don't just collapse due to fire.
Jetfuel cannot melt steel.
1400º hotspots 5 days later under WTC 1, 2 and 7 cannot be a result of fire.
A 110 story building cannot pancake without leaving the main support columns (74) standing.
Planes don't desintegrate without leaving motors and tails and wings behind.
Four planes don't just get off course without immediate response
Suicide killers don't just pop-up alive in other parts of the world..

Remember that they said (Rice) that no-one could have imagined planes being flown in the pentagon...... They had an exercise about it in 2000. Scale model with a jet that crashed through the walls!
So it could not only be imagined, they actually practiced it!!

___________________________________________________________________________
If we ASSUME, that makes an ASS out of U and ME !!!

 

[Reba]

..1400º hotspots 5 days later under WTC 1, 2 and 7 cannot be a result of fire.
A 110 story building cannot pancake without leaving the main support columns (74) standing.
Planes don't desintegrate without leaving motors and tails and wings behind.
Four planes don't just get off course without immediate response
Suicide killers don't just pop-up alive in other parts of the world..

So what are your answers? What are the reasons?

Remember that they said (Rice) that no-one could have imagined planes being flown in the pentagon...... They had an exercise about it in 2000. Scale model with a jet that crashed through the walls!
So it could not only be imagined, they actually practiced it!!

That has been totally debunked.

Hijacking Drill
The story...

"Oct. 24-26, 2000 - Pentagon officials carry out a "detailed" emergency drill based upon the crashing of a hijacked airliner into the Pentagon. [Source: The Mirror, May 24, 2002]"
"Oh Lucy! - You Gotta Lotta 'Splain' To Do"

What more proof does anyone need to show that the US Government had advance knowledge of 9/11?

Our take...

Taken literally, that quote does seem damning, but as usual things aren't quite as they seem.

This wasn't some major exercise on the ground, for instance; Note that the quote refers to "Pentagon officials" only. The entire drill took place in a few rooms at the Pentagon, where the attendees effectively played games designed to try out different scenarios.

There was a plane crash scenario included, but it was only a crash, not a hijacking, so doesn't display quite as much foreknowledge as we're being told. Further, that scenario was just one of several, which included "a mock terrorist incident at the Pentagon Metro stop and a construction accident".

So this appears nothing more than the type of contingency planning that's carried out everywhere, and as the Pentagon is right next to a major airport, it’s hardly a surprising choice of scenario. A November 2000 report provides more details.

"The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard.

Defense Protective Services Police seal the crash sight. Army medics, nurses and doctors scramble to organize aid. An Arlington Fire Department chief dispatches his equipment to the affected areas.

Don Abbott, of Command Emergency Response Training, walks over to the Pentagon and extinguishes the flames. The Pentagon was a model and the "plane crash" was a simulated one.

The Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, as the crash was called, was just one of several scenarios that emergency response teams were exposed to Oct. 24-26 in the Office of the Secretaries of Defense conference room.

On Oct. 24, there was a mock terrorist incident at the Pentagon Metro stop and a construction accident to name just some of the scenarios that were practiced to better prepare local agencies for real incidents.

To conduct the exercise, emergency personnel hold radios that are used to rush help to the proper places, while toy trucks representing rescue equipment are pushed around the exercise table.

Cards are then passed out to the various players designating the number of casualties and where they should be sent in a given scenario..."
http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/5_44/local_news/2852-1.html

This hasn’t stopped people trying to make the most of the story, though.

The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?
Scholars for 9/11 Truth; Why Doubt 9/11?

Here the Scholars for 911 Truth press release is written in such a way that it could leave the reader thinking the exercise simulated a plane being used as a weapon, yet without them saying that explicitly. Another good reason to question not only the facts and references presented in what you read, but any implied meanings, too.

These kind of military exercises have always been common. During our Navy days, Hubby and I participated in many of them. No big deal or conspiracy.

 

[Cloggy]

So what are your answers? What are the reasons?

The answers should come from the government. Not from me.

That has been totally debunked..

In the quote you have there's a line that says "What more proof does anyone need to show that the US Government had advance knowledge of 9/11?" but this is not the accusation. The accusation is that they have imagined this. But they said they had no idea this could happen. It's about lying!
The point is not that these exercises are commen. The point is that the scenario has been dealt with. But officials have said that no-one could imagine it. (Rice)
Still:
Exercises regariding multiple highjacking happen on the same day.
Exercise regarding flying a plane into the pentagon has been done.
Clinton admin handed over intelligence exactly about this kind of attacks.

SO.. they have imagined it, they got the info from clinton and other countries, they exercise it... AND THEY LIE that no-one could have foreseen it.

They LIED... but everyone seems to have forgotton that they said that!
___________________________________________________________________________
If we ASSUME, that makes an ASS out of U and ME !!!
days, Hubby and I participated in many of them. No big deal or conspiracy.[/quote]