You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)

Guest-accessible forum This forum allows unregistered guests access to read. You must register to post in this forum.


Topic HomeTopicsForum HomeForumsHomeSearchSettingsHelpExit

9/11 is a Fraud Created by the Government


{Politics.523.4291}: Otis Dill {Otis99} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 07:07:18 EDT (3 lines)

I thought you said that Rumsfeld ordered the F16 planes to stand down. How
da hell could Flt 93 have been shot down if the F16 plNes were ordered to
stand down?????? Dumb ass


{Politics.523.4292}: Richard Clark {cardo} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 10:37:15 EDT (HTML)

Apparently there was some confusion and miscommunications that day. Ya think?


{Politics.523.4293}: Otis Dill {Otis99} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:25:42 EDT (3 lines)

Of course. The only ones claiming otherwise are you Twoofers - that it was
all an elaborately planned and orchestrated "inside job." Glad to hear you
admit the obvious after only 13 years, haha!


{Politics.523.4294}: Steve Lacey {masked} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:19:31 EDT (21 lines)

Richard wrote {4290}: "Please reread Jay's post:4287 and address the
facts it points out."

I did an Internet search for information about the debris mentioned
in jay's {4287}, found 8 miles from the crash site.

The majority of links went to conspiracy-theory websites, which in
turn referenced the newspaper (and other media) reports that made up
the rest of the links. The debris was reported as being first found
two days after the crash of flight 93 and was frequently described as
"light" debris. Some reports stated that it was exclusively debris of
the kind that could have been blown from the crash site by the
prevailing winds over the required distance in that time--papers, for

This is something to be kept in mind. Besides the explanation that
conspiracy theorists prefer, which is that the debris was 8 miles from
the crash site because the plane was blown up in mid-air by US fighter
planes or something comparable, there is another, equally plausible
explanation that does not require blind, unquestioning belief in any
nefarious US government conspiracy.


{Politics.523.4295}: Richard Clark {cardo} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:24:18 EDT (HTML)

Whenever a site reports what the blinkered mainstream media cannot report, it is labeled a "conspiracy site." Kindly factor that in.


{Politics.523.4296}: Senator Lampoon {yesdeer} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:55:32 EDT (HTML)

Inertia applies to silly conspiracy theories and fantasy applies to those who continue along with the ride.


{Politics.523.4297}: Otis Dill {Otis99} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:34:00 EDT (5 lines)

The debris found several miles from the site was insulation from the
plane. Insulation is pretty light. It was blown there by the wind.

This is a good example of the Twoofers failure to exercise critical


{Politics.523.4298}: Senator Lampoon {yesdeer} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:40:34 EDT (HTML)

Really. I mean, Richard relying on Jay for critical thinking is like the idiot leading the moron.


{Politics.523.4299}: Steve Lacey {masked} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:03:40 EDT (37 lines)

{4295} "Whenever a site reports what the blinkered mainstream media
cannot report, it is labeled a ‘conspiracy site.’ Kindly factor that

Nothing there to factor in, Richard. I, not the mainstream media,
called them "conspiracy-theory websites." Why? Because of URLs,
headlines, and other clues, such as the following (a small selection
only): Headline:
“Flight 93: proof of lies by the US government and media” Article headed “9/11 Spare me
please” and subheaded “Evidence indicates Flight 93 shot down by US
fighter” Headline: “Was UAL Flight 93 shot
down by a US fighter?”

Such clues indicate that the articles' authors and the maintainers of
the websites believe that some sort of conspiracy, a conspiracy that
includes the US government, exists, whose object is to mislead the
public about the truth of what happened on September 11, 2001, and
that they think they have evidence that their belief in such a
conspiracy is correct. Thus I call them "conspiracy-theory websites."

Besides, in deciding whether or not they’re telling the truth, how in
the heck can you “factor in” what I—or the mainstream media—call them?
What does “factor that in” even mean? And what does it matter? Your
suggestion, Richard, doesn’t make sense.

In any case, my point was and is that debris (papers and similar
lightweight materials) being found 8 miles from the crash site, two
days later, can be explained rationally and credibly by other causes
than just the one about F16s shooting Flight 93 down. Factoring in the
characterization of websites--whatever that means--doesn't change


{Politics.523.4300}: Richard Clark {cardo} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 19:01:54 EDT (HTML)

It all depends on which way the wind was blowing, the altitude of the plane, and how hard the wind was blowing beneath the plane. And I've seen no info about that. Has anyone else?


{Politics.523.4301}: Richard Clark {cardo} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 19:04:09 EDT (HTML)



{Politics.523.4302}: Senator Lampoon {yesdeer} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 20:08:09 EDT (HTML)

Richard, it's obvious that when the plane hit the ground insulation, paper, other stuff, and conspiracy theories were scattered among the wild winds.


{Politics.523.4303}: Jay Hoffman {resist} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 20:35:55 EDT (3 lines)

Flight 93 crash site:


{Politics.523.4304}: Otis Dill {Otis99} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 21:06:55 EDT (34 lines)

Paper found at Flt 93 crash site:

Despite the apparent lack of plane wreckage and human remains at the
Flight 93 crash site (see (After 10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001 and 10:45
a.m. September 11, 2001), a large amount of paper debris is found there,
mostly intact. Faye Hahn, an EMT who responds to the initial call for
help, finds “pieces of mail” everywhere. [McCall, 2002, pp. 31-32] Roger
Bailey of the Somerset Volunteer Fire Department finds mail “scattered
everywhere” around the site. He says, “I guess there were 5,000 pounds of
mail on board.” [Kashurba, 2002, pp. 38] Some envelopes are burned, but
others are undamaged. Flight 93 had reportedly been carrying a cargo of
thousands of pounds of US mail. [Longman, 2002, pp. 213-214] Whether this
is later examined as crime scene evidence is unclear: According to Bailey,
over subsequent days, whenever a lot of this mail has been recovered, the
post office will be called and a truck will come to take it away. Several
of the first responders at the crash site also see an unscorched bible
lying open on the ground, about 15 yards from the crash crater. [Kashurba,
2002, pp. 43, 110 and 129; Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 6/13/2006] Local
coroner Wallace Miller will later come across a second bible at the
warehouse where the Flight 93 victims’ belongings are kept. [Washington
Post, 5/12/2002 ] Other paper debris rains down on the nearby Indian Lake
Marina (see (Before 10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001). According to witness
Tom Spinelli, this is “mainly mail,” and also includes “bits of in-flight
magazine.” [Mirror, 9/12/2002] Other paper items will be recovered from
the crash site in the following days. These include a fragment of Ziad
Jarrah’s passport and a business card linking al-Qaeda conspirator
Zacarias Moussaoui to the 9/11 hijackers. [CNN, 8/1/2002; Washington Post,
9/25/2002] A flight crew log book and an in-flight manual belonging to
Lorraine Bay, a flight attendant on Flight 93, will also be recovered.
[National Museum of American History, 9/20/2003]

Mail and magazines were found around the crash site. Twoofers are stupid.


{Politics.523.4305}: Otis Dill {Otis99} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 21:11:51 EDT (29 lines)

Eyewitness accounts of Flt 93 state the plane was intact when it crashed:

 Tom Fritz, about a quarter-mile from the crash site: He hears a sound
that “wasn’t quite right” and looks up in the sky. “It dropped all of a
sudden, like a stone,” going “so fast that you couldn’t even make out what
color it was.” [ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, 9/12/2001]

 Terry Butler, a few miles north of Lambertsville: “It dropped out of the
clouds.” The plane rose slightly, trying to gain altitude, then “it just
went flip to the right and then straight down.” [PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE,

 Lee Purbaugh, 300 yards away: “There was an incredibly loud rumbling
sound and there it was, right there, right above my head—maybe 50 feet up.
… I saw it rock from side to side then, suddenly, it dipped and dived,
nose first, with a huge explosion, into the ground. I knew immediately
that no one could possibly have survived.” [INDEPENDENT, 8/13/2002]
Upside down and a sudden plunge -

 Linda Shepley: She hears a loud bang and sees the plane bank to the side.
[ABC NEWS, 9/11/2001] She sees the plane wobbling right and left, at a low
altitude of roughly 2,500 feet, when suddenly the right wing dips straight
down, and the plane plunges into the earth. She says she has an
unobstructed view of Flight 93’s final two minutes. [PHILADELPHIA DAILY
NEWS, 11/15/2001]

Twoofers are stupid.


{Politics.523.4306}: Jay Hoffman {resist} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 21:22:24 EDT (16 lines)

The Crash of Flight 93
Crashing Plane Leaves Debris Field Miles Wide

For a plane that flew into the ground, Flight 93 left a rather
widespread debris field. Investigators found a second debris field
three miles away from the main crash site at Indian Lake, and a third
debris field in New Baltimore, eight miles away. 1   NTSB officials
suggested that the debris at these distant locations blew there in the
wind after the crash, but eyewitnesses at Indian Lake saw the debris
falling out of the sky, like confetti. One of the engines was 600 feet
from the main debris field by some accounts and a mile by others.

The eyewitness accounts are consistent with a missile strike and not
with a plane being flown into the ground.


{Politics.523.4307}: Otis Dill {Otis99} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 21:32:04 EDT (0 lines)


{Politics.523.4308}: Steve Lacey {masked} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 21:37:46 EDT (9 lines)

"The eyewitness accounts are consistent with a missile strike and not
with a plane being flown into the ground."

Not so. The eyewitness accounts are consistent with an airplane out
of control plunging wildly to the earth. None of the eyewitness
accounts cited describe anything consistent with a
smashed-by-a-missile or hit-by-fire-from-a-fighter-jet event. (With
the exception, I admit, of the one which mentions a loud bang. But
even that doesn't prove anything one way or the other.)


{Politics.523.4309}: Jay Hoffman {resist} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 21:43:37 EDT (50 lines)

Eyewitness Reports

Several witnesses reported hearing bangs before seeing Flight 93
flying in an erratic manner. Some described the engines making strange
sounds following the bangs.

But press the mayor for details, and he will add something surprising.
"I know of two people -- I will not mention names -- that heard a
missile," Stuhl said. "They both live very close, within a couple of
hundred yards. . .This one fellow's served in Vietnam and he says he's
heard them, and he heard one that day." The mayor adds that based on
what he knows about that morning, military F-16 fighter jets were
"very, very close." 3  

Laura Temyer and an unnamed male witness both describe two loud bangs
before the crash.

Laura Temyer, who lives several miles north of the crash site in
Hooversville, was hanging some clothes outside that morning when she
heard an airplane pass overhead. That struck her as unusual since
she'd just heard on TV that all flights were grounded.

"I heard like a boom and the engine sounded funny," she told the Daily
News. "I heard two more booms -- and then I did not hear anything."

What does Temyer think she heard? "I think the plane was shot down,"
insists Temyer, who said she has twice told her story to the FBI.
What's more, she insists that people she knows in state law
enforcement have told her the same thing, that the plane was shot down
and that decompression sucked objects from the aircraft, explaining
why there was a wide debris field. 4  

A witness said he heard two loud bangs before watching the plane take
a downward turn of nearly 90 degrees. A large crater, from which none
of the plane could be seen, was left in the ground. 5  

Linda Shepley reported hearing a single loud bang before the crash.

One eyewitness to the Pennsylvania crash, Linda Shepley, told
television station KDKA in Pittsburgh that she heard a loud bang and
saw the plane bank to the side before crashing. 6  

A witness described the plane making screeching sound as it turned

A witness told WTAE-TV's Paul Van Osdol that she saw the plane
overhead. It made a high-pitched, screeching sound. The plane then
made a sharp, 90-degree downward turn and crashed. 7  



{Politics.523.4310}: Richard Clark {cardo} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 22:09:36 EDT (HTML)

<<< eyewitnesses at Indian Lake saw the debris falling out of the sky, like confetti. >>>

How do you explain that, Otis?

<<< One of the engines was 600 feet from the main debris field by some accounts and a mile by others. >>>

How do you explain this, Otis? Do you think the engine bounced way up in the air when the plane hit the ground?

If the engine tore off due to stress from erratic flying, why wasn't it examined by proper authorities/experts, who would have certainly confirmed this fact and would have supplied evidentiary pictures to the press, no? But no pics ever appeared and there was no admission by officialdom that any engine was found. Why not? Probably because the engine revealed evidence of a shoot down, that's why.


{Politics.523.4311}: Otis Dill {Otis99} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 22:30:43 EDT (8 lines)

Richard Clark <<<< eyewitnesses at Indian Lake saw the debris falling out
of the sky, like confetti. >>>

Eyewitnesses saw Richard Clark molesting children.

Like how that works?

Go away until you learn to think critically.


{Politics.523.4312}: Jay Hoffman {resist} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:52:07 EDT (3 lines)

Evidence Indicates Flight 93 Was Shot Down



{Politics.523.4313}: Jay Hoffman {resist} Wed, 17 Sep 2014 02:02:57 EDT (50 lines)

 The Bush Cover-Up Begins to Unravel
9/11: the Saudi Connection
by James Ridgeway

In his New Yorker article, posted on the magazine’s web site last
week, Lawrence Wright tells how the Bush administration deleted 28
pages in the 2002 report of the Joint Congressional Inquiry on 911
probably because they describe in detail the Saudi connection to the
Al Qaeda attack and Saudi financing of its operatives in the United
States—people who knew two of the hijackers, and may well have been
used as conduits for Saudi cash. Some of the money may have come from
the royal family through a charity.

In removing the 28 pages Bush said the publication of the information
would damage American intelligence operations. The Saudis deny all of

Wright goes on to report:

“There’s nothing in it about national security,” Walter Jones, a
Republican congressman from North Carolina who has read the missing
pages, contends. “It’s about the Bush Administration and its
relationship with the Saudis.” Stephen Lynch, a Massachusetts
Democrat, told me that the document is “stunning in its clarity,” and
that it offers direct evidence of complicity on the part of certain
Saudi individuals and entities in Al Qaeda’s attack on America.
  “Those twenty-eight pages tell a story that has been completely
removed from the 9/11 Report,” Lynch maintains. Another congressman
who has read the document said that the evidence of Saudi government
support for the 9/11 hijacking is “very disturbing,” and that “the
real question is whether it was sanctioned at the royal-family level
or beneath that, and whether these leads were followed through.” Now,
in a rare example of bipartisanship, Jones and Lynch have co-sponsored
a resolution requesting that the Obama Administration declassify
the pages.

But there are other questions here, and they involve the story of how
the Bush administration sought to suppress evidence that would reveal
how much it knew of the attack plot —and didn’t do anything to stop

This story and the new piece by Wright strongly suggest the President,
Vice President and head of the FBI were engaged in obstruction of
justice. If so, that would call for the convening of a federal grand
jury. Would the Justice Department, which runs the FBI, do that?
Probably not.

So it is left to the families suing the Saudis to find and publish the


{Politics.523.4314}: Jay Hoffman {resist} Tue, 23 Sep 2014 22:58:39 EDT (12 lines)

Why do Good People Become Silent About the Documentable Facts That
Disprove the Official White House Conspiracy Theory About 9/11? – Part


Why do Good People Become Silent About the Documentable Facts That
Disprove the Official White House Conspiracy Theory About 9/11? – Part


{Politics.523.4315}: Otis Dill {Otis99} Sat, 22 Nov 2014 09:55:34 EST (43 lines)

2014/10/06    Permalink       0 commenti         Avvertenze per i
An interview with explosives expert Brent Blanchard

Undicisettembre: Since you already mentioned thermite, let's proceed with
this topic. What do you think of thermite? Is it even vaguely possible to
demolish the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center with thermite?

Brent Blanchard: No. In explosive demolitions thermite is never used.

The thermite assertion first came out three or four years after the event;
there was no talk of thermite until 2004 or 2005. All of a sudden this new
theory came out because all other theories were very easily proved
impractical or impossible.

There was a professor over here in States that decided back then that
thermite was his new theory, but the more you look into thermite the more
you understand that the way it causes the metal to fail is not consistent
with what happened. Then he changed his theory into nano-thermite and now
he might even come out with double-nano-thermite. There are always
variations that pop up about how thermite might have been used.

In order for thermite to work you have to have a release of the chemical
and the chemical has to actually cause the steel to deteriorate. I don't
how they think it can be done to an H-beam, or to any very thick steel
beam. Thermite doesn't work horizontally, it works vertically. You can't
cause thermite to cut horizontally through steel. You can't attach
thermite to a bunch of columns, dozens and dozens of columns, and expect
it to start cutting clean through all those columns at a predetermined
time or especially finish at the same time. I don't understand how it can
even theoretically occur. And it's never been articulately explained by
the theorists.

Thermite folks just tend to assert that a bunch of guys went in there, put
thermite on columns that happened to already be exposed, them somehow
triggered it all, and the thermite somehow cut horizontally through a
bunch of columns at the same time and caused the building to fail. That
makes no sense whatsoever.


I agree, thermite theory makes no sense whatsoever.


Topic HomeTopicsForum HomeForumsHomeSearchSettingsHelpExit
Forum Guidelines
Guest-accessible forum This forum allows unregistered guests access to read. You must register to post in this forum.

You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)

The New Café  Home | Your Hotlist and Directory | Independent Partner Forums |
FAQ | User Guidelines | Privacy Policy