response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks

[cursuswalker]

Describe what you find laughable.

The commission's version for one. From its inception ( the people chosen to head it) to the final report.
( replete with omissions)
How gullible do they expect the USApopulation to be?

nevermind, that has already been answered by the supposed "re-election" of prince GB.

Having read the 9/11 Commission Report in its entirety, perhaps you would like to point me to any assertion made in that report that is demonstrably false?

For example regarding the highly detailed planning by Al Qaeda for the attacks.

[Coito ergo sum]

Describe what you find laughable.

The commission's version for one. From its inception ( the people chosen to head it) to the final report.
( replete with omissions)
How gullible do they expect the USApopulation to be?

nevermind, that has already been answered by the supposed "re-election" of prince GB.

Having read the 9/11 Commission Report in its entirety, perhaps you would like to point me to any assertion made in that report that is demonstrably false?

For example regarding the highly detailed planning by Al Qaeda for the attacks.

Or, the transcripts of cell phone calls wherein people say words to the effect of, "We've been hijacked by terrorists. We're going to die."

[Coito ergo sum]

9/11 "Truthers" - did the following occur? Yes or no?

United Airlines Flight 175 was scheduled to depart for Los Angeles at 8:00.Captain Victor Saracini and First Officer Michael Horrocks piloted the Boeing 767, which had seven flight attendants. Fifty-six passengers boarded the flight.40 United 175 pushed back from its gate at 7:58 and departed Logan Airport at 8:14.By 8:33,it had reached its assigned cruising altitude of 31,000 feet.The flight attendants would have begun their cabin service.41 The flight had taken off just as American 11 was being hijacked,and at 8:42 the United 175 flight crew completed their report on a “suspicious transmission” overheard from another plane (which turned out to have been Flight 11) just after takeoff. This was United 175’s last communication with the ground.42 The hijackers attacked sometime between 8:42 and 8:46.They used knives (as reported by two passengers and a flight attendant), Mace (reported by one passenger), and the threat of a bomb (reported by the same passenger).They stabbed members of the flight crew (reported by a flight attendant and one passenger).

Both pilots had been killed (reported by one flight attendant).The eye-witness accounts came from calls made from the rear of the plane, from passengers originally seated further forward in the cabin, a sign that passengers and perhaps crew had been moved to the back of the aircraft. Given similarities
to American 11 in hijacker seating and in eyewitness reports of tactics and weapons,as well as the contact between the presumed team leaders,Atta and Shehhi, we believe the tactics were similar on both flights.43 The first operational evidence that something was abnormal on United 175 came at 8:47, when the aircraft changed beacon codes twice within a minute. At 8:51, the flight deviated from its assigned altitude, and a minute later NewYork air traffic controllers began repeatedly and unsuccessfully trying to contact it.44

At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: “I think they’ve taken over the cockpit—An attendant has been stabbed— and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines—Tell them it’s Flight 175,Boston to LA.” Lee Hanson then called the Easton Police Department and relayed what he had heard.45 Also at 8:52, a male flight attendant called a United office in San Francisco, reaching Marc Policastro.The flight attendant reported that the flight had been hijacked, both pilots had been killed, a flight attendant had been stabbed, and the hijackers were probably flying the plane.The call lasted about two minutes, after which Policastro and a colleague tried unsuccessfully to contact the flight.46

At 8:58,the flight took a heading toward New York City.47

At 8:59, Flight 175 passenger Brian David Sweeney tried to call his wife, Julie. He left a message on their home answering machine that the plane had been hijacked. He then called his mother, Louise Sweeney, told her the flight had been hijacked, and added that the passengers were thinking about storming
the cockpit to take control of the plane away from the hijackers.48

At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call from his son Peter:
It’s getting bad, Dad—A stewardess was stabbed—They seem to have knives and Mace—They said they have a bomb—It’s getting very bad on the plane—Passengers are throwing up and getting sick—The plane is making jerky movements—I don’t think the pilot is flying the plane—I think we are going down—I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building—Don’t worry, Dad— If it happens, it’ll be very fast—My God, my God.49

The call ended abruptly.Lee Hanson had heard a woman scream just before it cut off. He turned on a television, and in her home so did Louise Sweeney. Both then saw the second aircraft hit the World Trade Center.50

At 9:03:11, United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower of the World Trade Center.51 All on board, along with an unknown number of people in the tower, were killed instantly.

Peter Hanson, it seems, lied to his father, and his father did not see the plane his son was flying on slam into the south tower of the World Trade Center.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf

[Coito ergo sum]

Describe what you find laughable.

The commission's version for one. From its inception ( the people chosen to head it) to the final report.
( replete with omissions)
How gullible do they expect the USApopulation to be?

nevermind, that has already been answered by the supposed "re-election" of prince GB.

Having read the 9/11 Commission Report in its entirety, perhaps you would like to point me to any assertion made in that report that is demonstrably false?

For example regarding the highly detailed planning by Al Qaeda for the attacks.

I'd love to see that too. Here's the 9/11 Commission Report broken down into its chapters and sections. I would ask him to cite to a chapter/page: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/Index.html

[macdoc]

There are two topics I consider too stupid to discuss;

1. Creationism
2. 9/11 conspiracies.

rapidly approaching that status IMNSHO..

deniers of human impact on climate

fuck even the fossil fuel companies called "incontrovertible" back in the 90s.

[Cunt]

But Conny and Galaxian have already fled this thread...couldn't take the evidence, I suppose...what did they used to call it? Cognitive dissonance?

Anyway, there isn't anyone here who reasonably disagrees. I guess that is why Sagan, in his baloney detection kit, suggests...

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Without knowing much, anyone can see that the 'truthers' have vague innuendo and no answers to specific questions. It's rather telling.

[Martok]

Having read the 9/11 Commission Report in its entirety, perhaps you would like to point me to any assertion made in that report that is demonstrably false?

For example regarding the highly detailed planning by Al Qaeda for the attacks.

Truthers dismiss the entire Commission report.

They want to blame everybody, except the people who actually did it.

[Martok]

Peter Hanson, it seems, lied to his father, and his father did not see the plane his son was flying on slam into the south tower of the World Trade Center.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf

Truthers have called people like Hanson liars. Truthers have harassed witnesses who saw flight 93 crash but saw no military jets shoot it down. Truthers will not accept Islamic terrorists were responsible for 9/11.

[Cunt]

Maybe we could get Mr. Aldrin to discuss the issue with the truthers...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2272321.stm

[Coito ergo sum]

Peter Hanson, it seems, lied to his father, and his father did not see the plane his son was flying on slam into the south tower of the World Trade Center.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf

Truthers have called people like Hanson liars. Truthers have harassed witnesses who saw flight 93 crash but saw no military jets shoot it down. Truthers will not accept Islamic terrorists were responsible for 9/11.

The thing about that flight 93 and the whole "it was shot down" nonsense is that nobody denies that an order was given to shoot it down. Cheney has written about it, and Karl Rove writes about it in his new book: apparently Cheney confirmed on at least 2 occasions that Bush had given the go-ahead for fighter jets to shoot down the passenger plane to keep it from hitting another building. Bush himself has admitted that. And, at the time, the overwhelming majority of Americans polled on the topic said that they would think that would have been the right thing to do.

Tim Russert's show back in the fall of 2001:

"MR. RUSSERT: So if the United States government became aware that a hijacked commercial airline[r] was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down?

"VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yes. The president made the decision...that if the plane would not divert...as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by...terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board?

"...It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, "I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York."

If they had to shoot it down, I don't think they would have covered it up. It would have been sad, but most people would have understood.

[AshtonBlack]

hmphh, guess this is not the forum for serious discussion on this topic.
I'll try again next year. In the meantime try doing some independent research of your own, then pm me. We could discuss "it" off the website.

Hi Conny. You got it in one. I doubt that such forums are a platform for serious discussion of anything, seeing that they are infested with buffoons, more interested in farting & burping than in expanding their own knowledge or helping others expand theirs. You would have noticed that both on the old RDF & on this one, & probably on RationalSkepticism as well, the naysayers are in the majority, and are lazy, smug, lack curiosity, and accept spoon-feeding by their masters in stupefied abeyance.
Unfortunately, this is the lot of the human species, and why Earthlings don't have a snowball's chance in hell of participating in an interstellar civilization, and infact it would be a crying shame if, somehow, they did get that far, since the destruction, suffering & chaos caused would be truly awful.
Your last remark for them to do some research of their own is forlorn. Their research amounts to CNN editorials & denial of any paradoxes that stare them in the face. They are denizens of the 'comfort zone'.
Sorry to be the bearer of doom & gloom, but this is the planet we were dumped on. Nothing we can do about it

My emphasis. I for one, do not appreciate, however indirectly, being called lazy, smug, incurious and a slave, without some evidence of such. Play nice.

[devogue]

I doubt that such forums are a platform for serious discussion of anything, seeing that they are infested with buffoons, more interested in farting & burping than in expanding their own knowledge or helping others expand theirs.

Nearly right.

Farting and shitting, old chap. Farting and shitting...

[BlackBart]

I doubt that such forums are a platform for serious discussion of anything, seeing that they are infested with buffoons, more interested in farting & burping than in expanding their own knowledge or helping others expand theirs.

Nearly right.

Farting and shitting, old chap. Farting and shitting...

Don't forget knob gags too.

[Conny]

But Conny and Galaxian have already fled this thread...couldn't take the evidence, I suppose...what did they used to call it? Cognitive dissonance?

Anyway, there isn't anyone here who reasonably disagrees. I guess that is why Sagan, in his baloney detection kit, suggests...

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Without knowing much, anyone can see that the 'truthers' have vague innuendo and no answers to specific questions. It's rather telling.

naaa...( my emphasis,) au contraire, i think it is you who may have this problem... i just think it's probably a question of time...like many other events of history.
But, if you have time- or rather, if you want to make time, read this short article/ comment.
http://bigeye.com/911cat_is_out_of_the_bag.htm

[Coito ergo sum]

But Conny and Galaxian have already fled this thread...couldn't take the evidence, I suppose...what did they used to call it? Cognitive dissonance?

Anyway, there isn't anyone here who reasonably disagrees. I guess that is why Sagan, in his baloney detection kit, suggests...

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Without knowing much, anyone can see that the 'truthers' have vague innuendo and no answers to specific questions. It's rather telling.

naaa...( my emphasis,) au contraire, i think it is you who may have this problem... i just think it's probably a question of time...like many other events of history.
But, if you have time- or rather, if you want to make time, read this short article/ comment.
http://bigeye.com/911cat_is_out_of_the_bag.htm

You skipped over the posts asking you to identify the things in the 9/11 commission report that you take issue with: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/