Excellent article by Margolis

I read.. the war in Vietnam was all about Kennedy and Johnson winning elections.

Kosovo was all about Clinton hiding his undone zipper..

 

No I have not accepted the explanation. I did some checking. I checked on the flight crew by name. They all died in the crash and you can even find where their remains are buried. You can find the N number of the aircraft and it shows that was destroyed in a crash into the Pentagon. You can find the graves of the passengers. Admittedly, I did not check all of them. You can find the names of the hijackers who are now dead and we can even show when they entered the US and where they were trained. . You can find the aircraft route as recorded by the FAA. In order to pull of that conspiracy, you would have to silence so many people, that it borders on impossible.

 

You are not much of an investigator. Did you know that in its final report the Commission noted 60+ times that "we found no evidence" for one aspect of the narrative or another.

You checked the flight crews names? What does that prove? Nothing.

Did you bother to check the statements of Wally Miller the coroner in Shanksville PA? Likely not.

Did you investigate the meaning of the fairings on the belly of the airplane that struck the south tower? Likely not.

You had a good career with Lockheed, and that's terrific, but you do not seem to have an analytical mind. The craft that struck the south tower was not UA175, no matter what lists you have 'checked'.

 

It actually proves a lot. I am a member of findagrave. I know how it works. You check the memorials for those killed and many, if not most, list relatives and the memorials for their relatives which are linked to their memorials.. When you check the memorials of those relatives, you will find those memorials were added by people who have done a lot of work for findagrave. I even saw a few names of contributors that I recognized. That information is not added by officials of the government. It is added by people like me and unless someone took a personal interest in the memorial, it is not done. All of that fits perfectly with how findagrave operates. I found no inconsistencies.

I found information on the pilot on facebook for the class he graduated form at the Naval Academy. Don't you think at least some in his graduating class would get suspicious that their was a phony name listed?

The size of the conspiracy just went from a few to thousands, maybe tens or hundreds of thousands.

 

Good. While you're at it, see how many of those deceased you will find in the Social Security website for Death Benefits.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that names are on lists you've read, not at all.

I'm saying UA175 did not strike the south tower, UA77 did not strike the Pentagon, and AA11 did not strike the north tower and UA93 did not crash in Shanksville. They have a nice marble monument in Shanksville just to support the story, but that doesn't mean the airplane crashed there.

Both you and the 911 Commission are unable to prove the official story. The Commission stated clearly "we found no evidence" 60+ times. Does that interest you?

 

I did what any good investigator does. I picked a subject that I was very familiar with and looked for inconsistencies. I found none. I checked the registration numbers of the aircraft. And the entries appeared correct. I have similarly checked the registration numbers of aircraft I have owned and have flown. The entries for the hijacked aircraft were on the lists just like aircraft I have owned and flew. Then the FAA had all the information on the aircraft including the takeoff and the route flown. The 911 conspiracy is bogus because there is too much hard to fabricate evidence to the contrary.

 

I doubt very much you were doing investigative work for Lockheed or anybody else.

Checking "lists" is only a very small part of investigations.

 

You don't have a clue what I did for Lockheed Martin or anywhere else. You fall for the conspiracy theory and then break you neck trying to justify it. Checking lists and then doing cross checks when you have an intimate knowledge about the subject is exactly how it should be done.

 

My wife and I were sailing on an inland lake when 911 happened. We had anchored over night and our radio started talking about an airplane crashing into one of the towers. We did not think much about it at the time. We figured some small aircraft had hit one of the towers. We then sailed for a couple of hours to a marina where we intended to get lunch. The marina had their TV on and we could see the what had happened. There are some things which could be faked, but that was not one of them. There were too many real time witnesses.

 

Big spending, big military, world policing, big authoritarian government has nothing to do with liberty and freedom.

 

For starters the article vastly overstates U.S. annual military spending. The U.S. polices the world (kind of) because our economy and our general sense of well being depends on the world being as orderly as possible.

And the U.S. government is not remotely "authoritarian".

 

The repubs of today are more left than the dems of the 80's. Yes we are.
Wait til Trump signs red flag laws

 

Exactly how it should be done is going to the scene of the crime, examining the facts and evidence, and finding a rational conclusion by way of offering theories as to possible explanations. You know, interviewing people who were at the scene of the crime.

Stuff like the detectives normally do.

 

How about I do what I am actually capable of doing rather than proposing I do something which I cannot do? I found to my satisfaction that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon using the best analytical procedure available to me. There is too much overwhelming evidence that the four aircraft were hijacked to conclude otherwise in spite of the conspiracy theories.

 

My goodness, the analytical procedures available to you are very poor.

Analytical procedures available to me are far superior to yours. It is indeed a good thing that your livelihood does not depend upon your analytical skills.

 

What analytical skills have you used except to buy into the conspiracy theory? Did you actually come up with something different than what they fed you?

 

Many things. Two examples are Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth, and Pilots for 911 Truth. They have studied and analyzed the facts and evidence in the two broad subdivisions of the topic, the engineering perspective for the events at WTC, and the aviation perspective for the several aviation events that happened that day.

An excellent book you might be interested in reading, if it can still be bought, is "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert, a former cop.

To be clear, for a number of years I believed the official story as you do today. The truth is very unpleasant to contemplate, no doubt, but it must be done I think.

 

So what it amounts to is that you took the word of other conspiracy theorists. You used only information that they provided ot you., i headed off in a completely independent direction in areas not covered by the conspiracy theorists and it all checked out.

 

"All the war party needs is a steady supply of foreign villains (preferably Muslims) who can be occasionally bombed back to the early Islamic age. Americans have largely forgotten George W. Bush’s lurid claims that Iraqi drones of death were poised to shower poisons on the sleeping nation. Even the Soviets never ventured so deep into the sea of absurdity."

 

Yes, I took the word of the conspiracy theorist George Bush, when he proclaimed in the UN in late 2001 that "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."

But several years on, after I discovered something I had not known, that a third building came down that day, I realized my knowledge base was vastly incomplete. For years I had been unaware of a very obvious fact, that WTC7 had come down late that afternoon at free fall speeds.

Then I realized the official conspiracy offered by George Bush was incomplete and inaccurate. So I was forced to do my own investigation, and Mike Ruppert's book, written by a professional investigator, got me going in the right direction. The scam was obvious.

That you still buy into it all these years later shows how successful the scam was.

 

None of that has a thing to do with the issue at hand. You only looked at what they spoon fed and agreed with it. You did not look for other data and do extensive cross checking using data that they did not provide to you. . And you say I am lacking in my analytic skills. You really need to keep your insults ot your self.

 

You didn't know that? World Trade Center Building #7 was shown on television as it fell. How could you have not seen that? And there was nothing surprising about it given the level of damage that occurred all around it. Plus there was actually a fourth building in the area that also collapsed due to the damage in the area but I don't remember its name.

 

To give you the full picture sir, I don't watch much TV. I watched the events of the day on 9/11 on televisions at work and in the diner where I eat. It all played out on TV, including the helicopters flying over Shanksville unable to see a wrecked airliner in that field because there was no airliner in that field.

So, when the towers fell, I walked away in disgust, and did not watch TV again for weeks. Thus I did not see the collapse of WTC7 because I was not watching TV when it happened. Do you understand that?

 

No I don't. And you are denying Flight 93 crashed into the field in Pennsylvania? Wow. You've really drunk the conspiracy mongers koolaid.

 

He is at least partially right. Several key officers including Chief of Naval Operations Elmo Zumwalt opposed the Vietnam War. Others even if they supported the right and importance of the U.S. being involved opposed the degree of escalation that the U.S. engaged in.