Thread: Zero Evidence that 9/11 Was an Inside Job

Originally Posted by 4Horsemen

JFK was hit close range or with a deer rifle from the front. whatever it was that hit him, hit him good in a spot only a trained sniper could do.

.

There is ZERO evidence that JFK was hit by gunshots from the front.

Now, you can trot out some "ballistic expert" that says it is possible probably.

But nonfactually based "expert" testimony is meaningless without actual evidence. It is simple speculation.

And the Warren Commission investigated suggestions that Kennedy was shot from the front and came up completely empty handed.

Originally Posted by Dayton3

There is ZERO evidence that JFK was hit by gunshots from the front.

Now, you can trot out some "ballistic expert" that says it is possible probably.

But nonfactually based "expert" testimony is meaningless without actual evidence. It is simple speculation.

And the Warren Commission investigated suggestions that Kennedy was shot from the front and came up completely empty handed.

B,.S. all doctors in dallas said it was an entrance wound to the front of the head and again,you dont know anything about the laws of physics,the officer on the left side was hit by blood matter all over his clothing an impossibliity if shot from behind.I see you havent looked at those videos.no surprise.the lone nut theorists never do.

Originally Posted by 9/11 was an inside job

B,.S. all doctors in dallas said it was an entrance wound to the front of the head and again,you dont know anything about the laws of physics,the officer on the left side was hit by blood matter all over his clothing an impossibliity if shot from behind.I see you havent looked at those videos.no surprise.the lone nut theorists never do.

Once again.

Any idiot can put things on YouTube.

Any idiot does apparently. Though I'm not sure who is the bigger idiot, those who put them on or the gullible clowns who watch them.

Conspiracy theory followers are nothing but abominally lazy bums desperately seeking justifications for their inaction by pretending by "huge conspiracies" by some omnipotent "dark powers" control everything. Anything as an excuse not to think and not to actually do anything. Those are the conspiracy people.

Please name a doctor in Dallas who has stated on the record what you claim and please make sure it is from a source with multiple means of verification.

Originally Posted by Woogs

Now for those that don't mind watching a video, here's one worth watching from the Pilots For 9/11 Truth. It's about an hour but worth it.

Interesting video. Even more interesting that they make the disclaimer at the beginning that "PilotsFor911Truth.org does not offer theory or place blame regarding the events surrounding September 11, 2001" but yet sure is a lot of "here's what we think happened" or "here's what might have happened" in the video.

At any rate, the discrepancies between the CSV file and the animation raise some questions. At 50 minutes or so in, the phone conversation between the PilotsFor911Truth.org guy and the NTSB guys attempting to get some info about the discrepancies is very interesting.

Originally Posted by DDave

Interesting video. Even more interesting that they make the disclaimer at the beginning that "PilotsFor911Truth.org does not offer theory or place blame regarding the events surrounding September 11, 2001" but yet sure is a lot of "here's what we think happened" or "here's what might have happened" in the video.

At any rate, the discrepancies between the CSV file and the animation raise some questions. At 50 minutes or so in, the phone conversation between the PilotsFor911Truth.org guy and the NTSB guys attempting to get some info about the discrepancies is very interesting.

I pretty much agree with you assessment of the video. They do theorize at the end, but it's probably the only realistic conclusion based on the the flight data, the event on the ground and the conflicting witness statements. Before watching that vid, I was fully convinced, based largely on the security video and the building damage, that the Pentagon was not hit by a 757.

That opens up a whole other can of worms, though, and I'm not sure where that would lead. I've seen a vid about 'fake victims', but it's obvious that people really did die on 9/11. Now, that doesn't exclude that there could be some fake victims among that group.

The thing is, when looking into this, there IS a lot of nutjob stuff out there and it can be hard to separate that from the rational stuff. I think the gov't is quite happy with that. Even if someone gets it exactly right, there's already enough crazy stuff out there that it gets lost in the mix.

The Pilot's for 9/11 Truth may be on to something, though. I mean, the NTSB provided them with the data that shows the discrepancies between the data recorder and the 9/11 Commission's report. My guess is that was a big 'oops' on their part.

Hey, thanks for watching the vid. Most wouldn't take the time to watch but will spend hours arguing about it here.

Originally Posted by 4Horsemen

the LHO nuts think a drunk janitor with the precision of a Navy Seal capped this guy from a half a mile a way. naaaaaaaaaaaah.

LOL. I"m not familiar with the JFK conspiracy theories but I see there is a JFK equivalent to the 9/11 "guy who couldn't fly a kite yet executed a perfect 330° corkscrew maneuver and hit the budget analyst office without even scraping the ground"

Originally Posted by Woogs

The Pilot's for 9/11 Truth may be on to something, though. I mean, the NTSB provided them with the data that shows the discrepancies between the data recorder and the 9/11 Commission's report. My guess is that was a big 'oops' on their part.

Yes it would be nice to see an explanation of the discrepancies. I would guess, and it's just a guess I'll admit, that it has something to do with calibration of the altimeter and/or location tracking of the FDR. I don't know how accurate they are but if the pilots have to enter calibration offsets for altitude I would speculate that there is some inherent error in the location tracking as well. Again, I'll be the first to admit that I'm just guessing. I don't have any background in aviation navigation equipment. I'm just speculating on what I have experienced with my own GPS.

But it is interesting that the NTSB was not at all interested in trying to explain the discrepancies. Could be fear of legal repercussions or responsibility if they say the "wrong" thing. I'm doubtful of many of the details of the "official" story but at this point I think it has more to do with "covering someone's ass" versus a massive sinister coverup.

Originally Posted by Woogs

Hey, thanks for watching the vid. Most wouldn't take the time to watch but will spend hours arguing about it here.

Well I'll give PilotsFor911Truth a whirl once in awhile. They seem to be the least "agendaish" of the truther sources.. I would prefer they back off on the propaganda though if they want to claim they aren't offering theory or placing blame. It's hard to take killtown seriously though.

I've been looking around and found another area that is interesting and that is the cell phone calls made from the hijacked planes. Apparently, in 2001, cell phones were useless above 8,000 ft. and were unreliable even at lower altitudes. Yet, especially on Flight 93, many cell phone calls were successfully made from a 35,000 ft cruising altitude.

It seems that it is the technical evidence contrary to the official story that has the best chance of sticking. If there was a conspiracy, this seems to have been a weak point in constructing it. The discrepancies in the flight data recorder and the 9/11 Commission report on Flight 77 are interesting to say the least and the use of cells phones at cruising altitude in 2001 is really hard to believe.

Also, the calls from Barbara Olson to her husband, Ted, are suspect just from Ted's telling of how they happened. His story has been contradicted by American Airlines, the FBI and by the historians that wrote Pentagon 9/11, which was put out by the DOD.

Here's some links for any that want to delve into this aspect.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=8514

http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html

Originally Posted by DDave

Yes it would be nice to see an explanation of the discrepancies. I would guess, and it's just a guess I'll admit, that it has something to do with calibration of the altimeter and/or location tracking of the FDR. I don't know how accurate they are but if the pilots have to enter calibration offsets for altitude I would speculate that there is some inherent error in the location tracking as well. Again, I'll be the first to admit that I'm just guessing. I don't have any background in aviation navigation equipment. I'm just speculating on what I have experienced with my own GPS.

But it is interesting that the NTSB was not at all interested in trying to explain the discrepancies. Could be fear of legal repercussions or responsibility if they say the "wrong" thing. I'm doubtful of many of the details of the "official" story but at this point I think it has more to do with "covering someone's ass" versus a massive sinister coverup.

I'm not a tech person and know even less about aircraft. The 2 animations in the video were made by the NTSB and the 9/11 Commission though, and certainly do not agree at a critical point...really at THE critical point.

Originally Posted by Woogs

I've been looking around and found another area that is interesting and that is the cell phone calls made from the hijacked planes. Apparently, in 2001, cell phones were useless above 8,000 ft. and were unreliable even at lower altitudes. Yet, especially on Flight 93, many cell phone calls were successfully made from a 35,000 ft cruising altitude.

It seems that it is the technical evidence contrary to the official story that has the best chance of sticking. If there was a conspiracy, this seems to have been a weak point in constructing it. The discrepancies in the flight data recorder and the 9/11 Commission report on Flight 77 are interesting to say the least and the use of cells phones at cruising altitude in 2001 is really hard to believe.

Also, the calls from Barbara Olson to her husband, Ted, are suspect just from Ted's telling of how they happened. His story has been contradicted by American Airlines, the FBI and by the historians that wrote Pentagon 9/11, which was put out by the DOD.

Here's some links for any that want to delve into this aspect.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=8514

http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html

Debunked long (*)(*)(*)(*)ing ago, people are sad and not even a challenge anymore:

http://911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html

Originally Posted by The Doctor

Debunked long (*)(*)(*)(*)ing ago, people are sad and not even a challenge anymore:

http://911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html

From your link....

Whatever the truth of that, 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). If mobiles wouldn't work, then doesn't it make sense that passengers would use the phone by their seat instead? Yes, it does:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is that really true?

A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”8

In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Seems like your debunking site is what is sad. It's full of a mish-mash of unrelated info, such as one piece talking about what is clearly a small plane traveling much slower than cruising speed of an airliner and also well below an airliner's cruising altitude. It's not only the altitude, but the speed that made cell phone calls difficult at best.

Here's another from your site.

What we found was disturbing. Passengers are using cellphones, on the average, at least once per flight, contrary to FCC and FAA regulations, and sometimes during the especially critical flight phases of takeoff and landing.

No one in the links I provided suggested that a cell phone couldn't be used when an airplane was close to the ground and traveling slower. It's not even relevant to the discussion or what the author on your site was trying to 'prove'. It's more just muddying the water while trying to fluff up an argument that's really just a shotgun approach to a subject.

But, hey, if it works for you.....