High Ranking US Major General Exposes September 11 High

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horn

Lets not forget the testimony of the taxi cab driver of the cab pictured below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvyQ0vVwjqc

---

That video is so misleading it's ridiculous. The guy doesn't remember where he was, or what happened. His recollection is all over the place. Then the guy leads him into saying it was planned "off camera".

Well yeah, the narrative is a bunch of terrorists planned the attack as was stated on TV for him 24/7.

This is all big to him....the pentagon...the big money guys, he's just a small guy driving a taxi, it was planned. Well yeah...he is stating the obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horn

What evidence, were there some thrust vectoring calculations that were missed somewhere on thread?

Where's the bunch a cars?

Were you on the bridge with a bunch of cars that day?

---

Ok no cars would be on the highway right by the pentagon, during rush hour, on a Tuesday morning. Especially the ones hit by light poles, or all the witnesses there that said they saw the plane.

One scenario is much more likely and very simple (airplane...check.....fly it....hit building....done), while the other requires a ton of elaborate planning, evidence planting and tampering, witness fabrication, and ridiculous levels of near impossible obfuscation with people roaming around all over the place.....and, after all of that, you still have to corral a bunch of people from a plane flight, and go dispose of them somewhere along with the airplane on top of it all. Hmm...go crash it in the ocean, then collect all the floating debris? Dig a hole, and bury it? Go crash it in the woods somewhere, then clean it all up? Why not just crash it into the building?!? ....It's insanity.

This is why people hear this missile thing, roll their eyes, and the whole 9II truth movement takes a massive nose dive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joboo

Why not just crash it into the building?!? ....It's insanity.

---

The wall of the Pentagon is too hard (as in difficult to acquire, not hardness joboo) a target for a jetliner, a near impossible one.

Roof possibly, wall no.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guZ83lA8S5M

Federal officers are betting their lives that the flight paths differ from your downed light poles in this video,

so afterall your light poles prove the cruise missile's path.

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horn

The wall of the Pentagon is too hard (as in difficult to acquire, not hardness joboo) a target for a jetliner, a near impossible one.

Roof possibly, wall no.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guZ83lA8S5M

Federal officers are betting their lives that the flight paths differ from your downed light poles in this video,

so afterall your light poles prove the cruise missile's path.

Thanks.

---

The video starts off as "NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT"

It's sensationalistic from the very beginning.

So far no proof of anything other than a Plane.

It has to be this grand ultra ridiculous scheme of elaborate perplexity to no end, when all they had to do was use the airplane already in the air flying towards it!

The most complicated far fetched scenario imaginable v.s. the simplest and most probable.

The real detraction from the perpetrators of this crime is people that insist on pushing this lunatic nonsensical truther angle, when nothing shows it to be a missile under scrutiny, and everything points to it being an airplane.

For the love of god, and everything sane in this world, stop doing it!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joboo

The video starts off as "NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT"

It's sensationalistic from the very beginning.

So far no proof of anything other than a Plane.

It has to be this grand ultra ridiculous scheme of elaborate perplexity to no end, when all they had to do was use the airplane already in the air flying towards it!

The most complicated far fetched scenario imaginable v.s. the simplest and most probable.

The real detraction from the perpetrators of this crime is people that insist on pushing this lunatic nonsensical truther angle, when nothing shows it to be a missile under scrutiny, and everything points to it being an airplane.

For the love of god, and everything sane in this world, stop doing it!!

---

It's only a distraction if you let it be a distraction. Most people in this thread who don't think it was a plane are not distracted, but rather they consciously understand they don't know what happened with certainty and are building up theories about what happened.

The only distraction comes in when someone attempts to force a consensus and/or has a problem with someone else asking questions.

Obviously the general public will have issues with possibilities that are considered fringe, but that is truly their issue, not the people who propose such theories. In an abstract sense, the need for an official story of any sort, a consensus, is where the flaw comes stems from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vacuum

A conspiracy theorist recognizes (a) there is a continuum of possibilities, (b) the likelihood of anyone being completely right is almost zero, and (c) all theories are recognized to be possibilities, not certainties. The last one is what I think most people have problems with. Most people are certain about their personal view of the world, and therefore when someone says they believe some version of something happened, they transfer their personal certainty onto the person making the claim, and are shocked at what they find. On the other hand, from the other person's view, it was implied that their theory isn't gospel. They probably don't even totally believe it themselves! They don't expect the other person to take it that way.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vacuum

Most people have a difficult time understanding how truly different the two different cognitive processes described here are. Deductivists/subscribers believe they are already taking all possibilities into account, and that all the different spurious theories simply have no weight and are therefore largely irrelevant. Perhaps the simple answer is that conspiracy theorists just can't distinguish between relevant and irrelevant facts? It's much different than that. The fundamental attitude of a subscriber is that in order for them to believe something, change their conclusion, or even take the time to look at the details of a possibility, they have to be presented with evidence. They say “prove it to me”. They've settled on an essentially logical conclusion, and do not come up with alternate explanations beyond that point unless compelling evidence is presented to them.

On the other hand, the “conspiracy theorist” never stops asking questions. Even when they are pretty confident they know what really happened, they inevitably question the official story – their personal official story. They are driven by the fact that they don't really know what happened.

Truth is not a right; it's a great privilege only gained by a few through hard work and brutal self honesty. It's immature to expect things to be proven to you. When one recognizes his abject ignorance, truth seeking then becomes a desperation. Instead of asking something to be proven to him, the ignorant should seek out those who he suspects know more than him and beg to be taught. Only those who hold unquestioned premises have the luxury of taking a passive role, everyone else must either take an active role or choose to be ignorant.

Continually asking questions, looking at the possibilities in every context, looking at the possibilities of those possibilities, and questioning one's own personal official theory is indeed a distinct feature of abductive reasoning. Over time, petabytes worth of information will be gathered, creating unforeseeable connections and patterns that the deductivist just cannot see, because he stops asking questioning once he has come to a conclusion. Further questions must have “proof” which may itself require these petabytes of information which they are lacking.

---

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthre...iracy-Theorist

All the evidence points to it being an airplane, It's the simplest most coherent, and likely reality, and everything indicates it was under proper (not loose change pictorial style) scrutiny.

You can try to twist that, but ultimately you can't escape the parameters of the equation just by thinking about it.

As far as I know, thinking about physical realities physically changing does not make them actually change physically.

The human mind has no such magical powers that I know of.

Hahahahaha....what ever jobo!
No skid marks of giant titanium engines in the grass or one piece of titanium found from the Volkswagen size jets.
No impact of these two giant titanium jet engines where glass windows are not shattered!

I was born at night, but not last night.
Go back to that cave you came from.
If you want to demonstrate your stupidity you don't have to go into such great detail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joboo

All the evidence points to it being an airplane, It's the simplest most coherent, and likely reality, and everything indicates it was under proper (not loose change pictorial style) scrutiny.

---

I am, personally, relatively ignorant about this whole thing. I never researched it, haven't read all the replies in this thread, and have not reviewed all the evidence. I have not watched one video on this topic which tries to prove one thing or the other. I haven't seen all the pictures. I've never piloted a plane.

Quote:

---

You can try to twist that, but ultimately you can't escape the parameters of the equation just by thinking about it.

As far as I know, thinking about physical realities physically changing does not make them actually change physically.

The human mind has no such magical powers that I know of.

---

Either you didn't read, or didn't understand, my first quoted paragraph. I claim uncertainty, which bothers you.

At this point, for me, having done almost zero research, my guess is that it probably wasn't a plane. (Does that statement bother you?) When, and if, I devote time into doing the research, my guess might change and I'll be a little less uncertain. The kicker is that the only way I can become less uncertain is by investing the time and doing the research myself. I'm glad you are more certain than I am, and I appreciate that fact. But your certainty can't translate into mine. That's not twisting reality, in fact it's the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joboo

Far away foam covered pics does not mean there wasn't debris. Anything impacting the building will cause debris...which is why I find Steel_Ag's video very inconsistent re: no debris.

When you slam an airplane into a brick skinned container (building) at over 400mph pretty much all of it is going to end up there. There was debris all over the place. To say there wasn't needs to be immediately followed up with some ideas of when did they plant so much of it without anyone noticing?

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/p...tcollapse1.jpg

---

My position on this Pentagon situation is similar to #138 of this thread... "That crime being a complacent Pentagon, and its tiny hole in a wall."

I made no claim to the veracity of any video or link in this thread.

And, I'm still galloping in April. I'll pick up some some pickled red herring when I get there. Uncertainty if some will be there? Well, like Vacuum, it doesn't bother me.

Executive summary for the latecomers:

1. Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile, not a passenger jet on 911
2. Government shills still working OT trying to sell the absurd and unprovable passenger jet conspiracy, 12 years later.
3. Shills will never mention the the very unique and special qualities and contents of the specific small portion of the Pentagon destroyed by the cruise missile on 911.

911 was an inside job. Only the ill-informed, the mentally lazy and the paid propaganda shills puppet or believe the official government story of 911, the most absurd and improbable conspiracy theory of them all.