• Forums
  • Best Betting Sites
  • Sportsbook Promos
  • Best Sports Betting Apps
  • NFL Betting Forum
  • NBA Betting Forum
  • MLB Betting Forum
  • NHL Betting Forum
  • NCAAF Betting Forum
  • NCAAB Betting Forum
  • Soccer Betting Forum
  • Tennis Betting Forum
  • General Discussion
  • Help Forum
  • Guidelines
  • FAQ
  • Forum Updates
    Covers Logo
    Covers App
    Faster picks. Smarter bets.
    All in the NEW Covers App
    Download on the App Store Download on the Google Play Store
    • Sports
      • NFL
        • Back
        • NFL
        • NFL Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • NFL Picks
        • Weather
        • Injuries
      • NCAAF
        • Back
        • NCAAF
        • NCAAF Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • NCAAF Picks
        • Weather
        • Injuries
      • NBA
        • Back
        • NBA
        • NBA Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • NBA Picks
        • Injuries
      • NCAAB
        • Back
        • NCAAB
        • NCAAB Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • NCAAB Picks
        • Injuries
      • MLB
        • Back
        • MLB
        • MLB Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • MLB Picks
        • Weather
        • Injuries
      • NHL
        • Back
        • NHL
        • NHL Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • NHL Picks
        • Injuries
      • Soccer
      • UFC
      • WNBA
        • Back
        • WNBA
        • WNBA Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • WNBA Picks
        • Injuries
      • CFL
        • Back
        • CFL
        • CFL Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • CFL Picks
      • Golf
        • Back
        • Golf
        • Golf Home
        • Golf Odds
        • Masters Odds
        • PGA Championship Odds
        • US Open Odds
        • British Open Odds
        • Ryder Cup Odds
        • Golf Picks
    • Odds
      • All Odds
      • NFL
      • NCAAF
      • NBA
      • NCAAB
      • MLB
      • NHL
      • Golf
      • Soccer Odds
        • Back
        • Soccer Odds
        • MLS Odds
        • Champions League Odds
        • Premier League Odds
      • UFC
      • WNBA
      • CFL
      • Election Odds
      • Futures
        • Back
        • Futures
        • NFL
        • NBA
        • MLB
        • NHL
        • NCAAB
        • NCAAF
      • Sports Odds History
    • Picks
      • All Picks
      • NFL
      • NBA
      • NHL
      • MLB
      • NCAAF
      • NCAAB
      • Golf
      • WNBA
      • CFL
      • User Picks
      • Team User Picks
      • Consensus Picks
        • Back
        • Consensus Picks
        • All Consensus Picks
        • NFL
        • NBA
        • NHL
        • MLB
        • NCAAF
        • NCAAB
        • CFL
        • WNBA
        • Consensus FAQ
        • Public Money
    • Prop Projections
      • NFL
      • NBA
      • MLB
      • NHL
    • Betting
      • US Betting Sites
      • Canada Betting Sites
      • Sportsbook Reviews
      • States
        • Back
        • States
        • US Legal Tracker
        • Revenue Tracker
        • Arizona
        • Arkansas
        • California
        • Colorado
        • Connecticut
        • DC
        • Florida
        • Georgia
        • Illinois
        • Indiana
        • Iowa
        • Kansas
        • Kentucky
        • Louisiana
        • Maine
        • Maryland
        • Massachusetts
        • Michigan
        • Mississippi
        • Missouri
        • Nevada
        • New Hampshire
        • New Jersey
        • New York
        • North Carolina
        • Ohio
        • Oregon
        • Pennsylvania
        • Tennessee
        • Texas
        • Vermont
        • Virginia
        • West Virginia
        • Wyoming
      • Provinces
        • Back
        • Provinces
        • Alberta
        • British Columbia
        • Manitoba
        • New Brunswick
        • Newfoundland and Labrador
        • Northwest Territories
        • Nova Scotia
        • Nunavut
        • Ontario
        • Prince Edward Island
        • Quebec (English)
        • Quebec (francais)
        • Saskatchewan
        • Yukon
      • By Sport
        • Back
        • By Sport
        • Baseball
        • Basketball
        • Boxing
        • College Football
        • F1
        • Football
        • Super Bowl
        • Golf
        • Hockey
        • Horse Racing
        • March Madness
        • Soccer
        • UFC
        • World Cup
      • Betting Apps
        • Back
        • Betting Apps
        • Best Sports Betting Apps USA
        • Ontario Sports Betting Apps
      • Rest of World
        • Back
        • Rest of World
        • UK Betting Offers
          • Back
          • UK Betting Offers
          • UK Betting Sites
          • bet365 Bonus Code UK
          • 888Sport Promo Code UK
          • William Hill Sign up Offer
          • Betway Sign up Offer
          • BetVictor Bonus Code UK
      • Betting Guides
        • Back
        • Betting Guides
        • All Guides
        • Glossary
        • Betting Calculators
          • Back
          • Betting Calculators
          • Odds Converter
          • Parlay Calculator
        • Futures Betting Guide
        • Moneyline Betting Guide
        • Over/Under Betting Guide
        • Parlay Betting Guide
        • Point Spread Betting Guide
        • Prop Betting Guide
        • Sports Betting Guides
          • Back
          • Sports Betting Guides
          • How To Bet On Sports Guide
          • NFL Betting Guide
          • NHL Betting Guide
          • NBA Betting Guide
          • MLB Betting Guide
          • NCAAB Betting Guide
          • NCAAF Betting Guide
          • Golf Betting Guide
          • Tennis Betting Guide
        • Teaser Betting Guide
      • Betting News
        • Back
        • Betting News
        • All News
        • Industry News
        • Podcasts
        • Covers Videos
        • Covers Writers
        • Offers & Boosts
    • Promos
      • Sportsbook Promos
      • Canada Sportsbook Promos
      • Bonuses By Sportsbook
        • Back
        • Bonuses By Sportsbook
        • bet365 Bonus Code
        • BET99 Promo Code
        • BetMGM Bonus Code
        • BetRivers Bonus Code
        • Caesars Sportsbook Promo
        • DraftKings Promo Code
        • Fanatics Sportsbook Promo
        • FanDuel Promo Code
        • Hard Rock Bet Promo Code
        • Sports Interaction Promo
        • Stake Promo Code
        • theScore Bet Promo Code
        • TonyBet Promo Code
      • Bonuses By Region
        • Back
        • Bonuses By Region
        • Arkansas Promos
        • Arizona Promos
        • Colorado Promos
        • Connecticut Promos
        • DC Promos
        • Illinois Promos
        • Indiana Promos
        • Iowa Promos
        • Kansas Promos
        • Kentucky Promos
        • Louisiana Promos
        • Maine Promos
        • Maryland Promos
        • Massachusetts Promos
        • Michigan Promos
        • Missouri Promos
        • New Jersey Promos
        • New York Promos
        • North Carolina Promos
        • Ohio Promos
        • Pennsylvania Promos
        • Tennessee Promos
        • Vermont Promos
        • Virginia Promos
        • West Virginia Promos
        • Wyoming Promos
    • Forum & Contests
      • All Forums
      • NFL Betting Forum
      • MLB Betting Forum
      • NCAAB Betting Forum
      • NCAAF Betting Forum
      • NBA Betting Forum
      • NHL Betting Forum
      • Soccer Betting Forum
      • Contests
        • Back
        • Contests
        • Contests Home
        • Streak Survivor
        • King of Covers
        • My Contests
    • Casino
      • Sweepstakes Casino
        • Back
        • Sweepstakes Casino
        • Sweepstakes Casino
        • Sweepstakes No-Deposit Bonuses
        • Sweepstakes Promos
          • Back
          • Sweepstakes Promos
          • Card Crush
          • Casino.click
          • Chanced Casino
          • Crown Coins Casino
          • FreeSpin Casino
          • LoneStar
          • McLuck
          • Mega Bonanza Casino
          • PlayFame
          • Pulsz
          • Stake.us
      • US Casinos
        • Back
        • US Casinos
        • US Online Casinos
        • US Online Casino Bonuses
        • Casino Promos
          • Back
          • Casino Promos
          • bet365 Casino Promo Code
          • BetRivers Casino Promo
          • Borgata Casino Bonus Code
          • Caesars Casino Bonus Code
          • DraftKings Casino Promo
          • Fanatics Casino Promo
          • FanDuel Casino Promo Code
          • Golden Nugget Casino Promo
          • Hard Rock Bet Casino Promo
          • Hollywood Casino Promo Code
      • Canada Casinos
        • Back
        • Canada Casinos
        • Canada Online Casinos
        • Provinces
          • Back
          • Provinces
          • Alberta Online Casino
          • BC Online Casino
          • Ontario Online Casinos
        • Casino Promos
          • Back
          • Casino Promos
          • BC.GAME Bonus Code
          • Cloudbet Promo Code
          • RainBet Promo Code
          • Roobet Promo Code
          • Shuffle Promo Code
          • Thrill Promo Code
    • Prediction Markets
      • Prediction Markets
      • Prediction Market Apps
      • Prediction Market Promos
      • Kalshi Promo Code
      • Polymarket Promo Code
      • DraftKings Predictions Promo Code
      • Novig Promo Code
      • ProphetX Promo Code
      • Underdog Promo Code
      • OG Promo Code
      • Fanatics Markets Promo Code
      • Plus500 Promo Code
    Covers Account
    Log in Create account
    Join free Log in
    All Forums | General Discussion

    September 11, 2001 (long read)

    «First Previous 222324 ... 616263 Next Last»
    smdio
    swahili
    reillym32
    HutchEmAll
    ABooksNightmare
    ...
    Participants:
    Search model icon
    Views: 50324
    Posts: 1555
    «First Previous 222324 ... 616263 Next Last»
     
    smdio
    smdio
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Oct, 2010
    Posts: 1094
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 8:05 AM ET #526

    Quote Originally Posted by tpjw44:

    Lets examine some more of our friend Smidio's claims:

    "The third family member that I spoke to (a mother of one of the Flight 93 members) instantly broke down in tears and hugged me. It wasn't the type of "hug" that you would receive from a complete stranger.  If I could try to compare it to something you might understand over the internet, it was the type of hug that an American Soldier might receive from their family after coming home from a long tour in Iraq. Long, emotional, and strong...Each time I mentioned the cell phone call between her and her son, she filled up with tears and could no longer speak.  It was the type of cry that really struck a nerve with me.  You could see the intensity in her face, like she wanted to tell me something but couldnt."

    Actual research into the calls made on Flight 93 show that six (6) calls were made by males on that flight.  There were Todd Beamer, Mark Bingham, Thomas Burnett, Joseph DeLuca, Edward Felt, and Jeremy Glick.

    1.  Todd Beamer called Lisa Jefferson, a GTE supervisor.  So this cannot be who our friend spoke to.

    2.  Thomas Burnett called Deena Burnett, his wife.  So this also cannot be who he spoke to.

    3.  Joseph DeLuca called his father.  Smidio spoke to a female.

    4.  Edward Felt spoke to John Shaw, an operator at for Westmoreland County.  Can't be this one.

    5.  Jeremy Glick also spoke to his wife.  Smidio told us it was a victim's mother. 

    6.  Mark Bingham spoke to his aunt, Kathy Hogland, and his mother, Alice Hoglan.

    So lets analyze the Mark Bingham calls further. 

    This from an MSNBC artice, ""Mark Bingham uses an Airfone to call his mother, Alice Hoglan, who is still asleep at her brother’s home in Saratoga, Calif., having been up late the night before caring for triplets. “Mom, this is Mark Bingham,” he tells her, so rattled he uses his last name. Bingham describes the situation for his mother, a United Airlines flight attendant. The call lasts about three minutes. Twice during the call, says Alice, “Mark was distracted. There was a five-second pause. I heard people speaking. There was murmuring, nothing loud.” She theorizes that Mark was talking to the other men, and planning to fight back."

    Uh oh.  Smidio told us "...each time I mentioned the cell phone call..."  The article above tells us Mark Bingham used an airfone.

    From pilotsfor911truth

    "...Mark Bingham's call was made via an Airphone."

    Uh oh...more bad news for Smidio

    From "The Final Moments of United Flight 93"

    "Mark Bingham uses an Airfone to call his mother, Alice Hoglan, who is still asleep at her brother’s home in Saratoga, Calif., having been up late the night before caring for triplets."

    From Global Research talking about Dylan Avery of Loose Change fame

    "Avery didn’t seem to have even considered the possibility that some or most of the calls were made on airphones, which is peculiar since, a few minutes later in the film, while describing Mark Bingham’s call to his mother from UAL93, he specifically mentions that Bingham twice told his mom that he was calling from an airphone. The damage to the truth movement by this oversight is incalculable. Was it truly an oversight, or something worse?"

    So a WELL KNOWN TRUTHER even says Bingham used an airphone.


    SOMEONE IS A LIAR.  Care to explain Smidio?  I would ask that after you say I'm lying you provide proof that a MALE on FLIGHT 93 called his MOTHER using a CELLPHONE.  Proof that is something other than your own words friend.  Are you going to tell us you don't want to give out her name?  Problem is there was only ONE male passenger who called his mother.  Uh oh. 

    The problem herein lies with your research.  I don't know where you got that "list" from, but it's very inaccurate.  I have a list somewhere that shows exactly 13 cell phone calls and the first 2-3 sentences of each call between the victims and their family. I believe this is something that I got directly from the "Right to Know" commission, which you can easily get as well

    And no, I will absolutely not give you a name or even a hint, out of respect for the women that I've become very close with, and per her request.

    Also, how low of a human being would I have to be in order to make up such a story? I've had people tell me in this thread that my father didn't die, and now this?  You guys call me a terrible person for believing these conspiracy theories, but the accusations that you're throwing toward me are far more disturbing than any conspiracy theory that I've ever come accross

    So much so, that I'm going to stop reading this thread now, I think.  One too many "you're dad is not dead" references for me.  I didn't come here for you assholes to attack my dead father, I came here to debate

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Quote Originally Posted by tpjw44:

    Lets examine some more of our friend Smidio's claims:

    "The third family member that I spoke to (a mother of one of the Flight 93 members) instantly broke down in tears and hugged me. It wasn't the type of "hug" that you would receive from a complete stranger.  If I could try to compare it to something you might understand over the internet, it was the type of hug that an American Soldier might receive from their family after coming home from a long tour in Iraq. Long, emotional, and strong...Each time I mentioned the cell phone call between her and her son, she filled up with tears and could no longer speak.  It was the type of cry that really struck a nerve with me.  You could see the intensity in her face, like she wanted to tell me something but couldnt."

    Actual research into the calls made on Flight 93 show that six (6) calls were made by males on that flight.  There were Todd Beamer, Mark Bingham, Thomas Burnett, Joseph DeLuca, Edward Felt, and Jeremy Glick.

    1.  Todd Beamer called Lisa Jefferson, a GTE supervisor.  So this cannot be who our friend spoke to.

    2.  Thomas Burnett called Deena Burnett, his wife.  So this also cannot be who he spoke to.

    3.  Joseph DeLuca called his father.  Smidio spoke to a female.

    4.  Edward Felt spoke to John Shaw, an operator at for Westmoreland County.  Can't be this one.

    5.  Jeremy Glick also spoke to his wife.  Smidio told us it was a victim's mother. 

    6.  Mark Bingham spoke to his aunt, Kathy Hogland, and his mother, Alice Hoglan.

    So lets analyze the Mark Bingham calls further. 

    This from an MSNBC artice, ""Mark Bingham uses an Airfone to call his mother, Alice Hoglan, who is still asleep at her brother’s home in Saratoga, Calif., having been up late the night before caring for triplets. “Mom, this is Mark Bingham,” he tells her, so rattled he uses his last name. Bingham describes the situation for his mother, a United Airlines flight attendant. The call lasts about three minutes. Twice during the call, says Alice, “Mark was distracted. There was a five-second pause. I heard people speaking. There was murmuring, nothing loud.” She theorizes that Mark was talking to the other men, and planning to fight back."

    Uh oh.  Smidio told us "...each time I mentioned the cell phone call..."  The article above tells us Mark Bingham used an airfone.

    From pilotsfor911truth

    "...Mark Bingham's call was made via an Airphone."

    Uh oh...more bad news for Smidio

    From "The Final Moments of United Flight 93"

    "Mark Bingham uses an Airfone to call his mother, Alice Hoglan, who is still asleep at her brother’s home in Saratoga, Calif., having been up late the night before caring for triplets."

    From Global Research talking about Dylan Avery of Loose Change fame

    "Avery didn’t seem to have even considered the possibility that some or most of the calls were made on airphones, which is peculiar since, a few minutes later in the film, while describing Mark Bingham’s call to his mother from UAL93, he specifically mentions that Bingham twice told his mom that he was calling from an airphone. The damage to the truth movement by this oversight is incalculable. Was it truly an oversight, or something worse?"

    So a WELL KNOWN TRUTHER even says Bingham used an airphone.


    SOMEONE IS A LIAR.  Care to explain Smidio?  I would ask that after you say I'm lying you provide proof that a MALE on FLIGHT 93 called his MOTHER using a CELLPHONE.  Proof that is something other than your own words friend.  Are you going to tell us you don't want to give out her name?  Problem is there was only ONE male passenger who called his mother.  Uh oh. 

    The problem herein lies with your research.  I don't know where you got that "list" from, but it's very inaccurate.  I have a list somewhere that shows exactly 13 cell phone calls and the first 2-3 sentences of each call between the victims and their family. I believe this is something that I got directly from the "Right to Know" commission, which you can easily get as well

    And no, I will absolutely not give you a name or even a hint, out of respect for the women that I've become very close with, and per her request.

    Also, how low of a human being would I have to be in order to make up such a story? I've had people tell me in this thread that my father didn't die, and now this?  You guys call me a terrible person for believing these conspiracy theories, but the accusations that you're throwing toward me are far more disturbing than any conspiracy theory that I've ever come accross

    So much so, that I'm going to stop reading this thread now, I think.  One too many "you're dad is not dead" references for me.  I didn't come here for you assholes to attack my dead father, I came here to debate

     
    smdio
    smdio
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Oct, 2010
    Posts: 1094
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 8:19 AM ET #527

    It's actually not called the "Right to Know" commission, thats the local one in my area.  The government one is called something else, but I can't remember the name right now.  It's along the same lines though
    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    It's actually not called the "Right to Know" commission, thats the local one in my area.  The government one is called something else, but I can't remember the name right now.  It's along the same lines though
     
    swahili
    swahili
    Rookie
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Sep, 2000
    Posts: 771
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 8:47 AM ET #528

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash_Man:

     

    I actually sent the article from ABC News to my mom, years ago.  I just did a Google Search, and I am having trouble locating the article from ABC News.  I did however, run across another story that was very similar.  This kid wasn't the only one, there was another school with teachers coming forward with similar info, many more students involved.

    https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/690989/posts

    This is as real as those towers coming down

    someones response from your link 

    Moreover, according to police, the youth confirmed having made the September 6 statement about the towers. At the moment he did so, his older brother elbowed him, said he had been “kidding,” and the youth in question agreed.

    I do not know of any Law enforcement agency policies that use "group" interrogations.
    The idea that both brothers were questioned simultaneously, in the same room, makes me question the veracity of the whole report.
    Policy dictates that the brothers be seperated, and questioned seperately.
    Discrepancies would be noted between the two brothers' answers, as well as "too similar" statements. ( those that are identical word for word, for example.)

    Additional questioning would then be performed, placing doubt in the minds of each of the brothers as to what the other had said, in order to detect even more discrepancies, such as changes in their stories, explanations for same that create even more questions or raise additional doubts.

    Likewise, the fathers' returning from Pakistan and complaining about civil rights violations sounds fake as well.
    Said father would not have had time to complain about his sons' civil rights, as he would be howling about his own.
    He would be in custody and going through a major grilling, non-stop, for at least a week, maybe a month.
    He would be held incommunicado, woken and questioned at odd and random hours, and not allowed a good night's rest.

    Hilarious flash -you attach a link to a story that could have come from the national enquirer --with all kinds of people tearing the report to shreads ---

    not even close to as real as the towers coming down.

    I'm sure you're mom humored you when you sent her this but like I said before --friends and co-workers probably not wise. 

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash_Man:

     

    I actually sent the article from ABC News to my mom, years ago.  I just did a Google Search, and I am having trouble locating the article from ABC News.  I did however, run across another story that was very similar.  This kid wasn't the only one, there was another school with teachers coming forward with similar info, many more students involved.

    https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/690989/posts

    This is as real as those towers coming down

    someones response from your link 

    Moreover, according to police, the youth confirmed having made the September 6 statement about the towers. At the moment he did so, his older brother elbowed him, said he had been “kidding,” and the youth in question agreed.

    I do not know of any Law enforcement agency policies that use "group" interrogations.
    The idea that both brothers were questioned simultaneously, in the same room, makes me question the veracity of the whole report.
    Policy dictates that the brothers be seperated, and questioned seperately.
    Discrepancies would be noted between the two brothers' answers, as well as "too similar" statements. ( those that are identical word for word, for example.)

    Additional questioning would then be performed, placing doubt in the minds of each of the brothers as to what the other had said, in order to detect even more discrepancies, such as changes in their stories, explanations for same that create even more questions or raise additional doubts.

    Likewise, the fathers' returning from Pakistan and complaining about civil rights violations sounds fake as well.
    Said father would not have had time to complain about his sons' civil rights, as he would be howling about his own.
    He would be in custody and going through a major grilling, non-stop, for at least a week, maybe a month.
    He would be held incommunicado, woken and questioned at odd and random hours, and not allowed a good night's rest.

    Hilarious flash -you attach a link to a story that could have come from the national enquirer --with all kinds of people tearing the report to shreads ---

    not even close to as real as the towers coming down.

    I'm sure you're mom humored you when you sent her this but like I said before --friends and co-workers probably not wise. 

     
    reillym32
    reillym32
    Prospect
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Oct, 2008
    Posts: 55
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 9:13 AM ET #529

    Quote Originally Posted by smdio:

    The problem herein lies with your research.  I don't know where you got that "list" from, but it's very inaccurate.  I have a list somewhere that shows exactly 13 cell phone calls and the first 2-3 sentences of each call between the victims and their family. I believe this is something that I got directly from the "Right to Know" commission, which you can easily get as well

    And no, I will absolutely not give you a name or even a hint, out of respect for the women that I've become very close with, and per her request.

    Also, how low of a human being would I have to be in order to make up such a story? I've had people tell me in this thread that my father didn't die, and now this?  You guys call me a terrible person for believing these conspiracy theories, but the accusations that you're throwing toward me are far more disturbing than any conspiracy theory that I've ever come accross

    So much so, that I'm going to stop reading this thread now, I think.  One too many "you're dad is not dead" references for me.  I didn't come here for you assholes to attack my dead father, I came here to debate



    You're full of sh*t smdio, thats why you won't be back.  You know there are people on here disproving all your made up stories and you have nothing more to say.
    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Quote Originally Posted by smdio:

    The problem herein lies with your research.  I don't know where you got that "list" from, but it's very inaccurate.  I have a list somewhere that shows exactly 13 cell phone calls and the first 2-3 sentences of each call between the victims and their family. I believe this is something that I got directly from the "Right to Know" commission, which you can easily get as well

    And no, I will absolutely not give you a name or even a hint, out of respect for the women that I've become very close with, and per her request.

    Also, how low of a human being would I have to be in order to make up such a story? I've had people tell me in this thread that my father didn't die, and now this?  You guys call me a terrible person for believing these conspiracy theories, but the accusations that you're throwing toward me are far more disturbing than any conspiracy theory that I've ever come accross

    So much so, that I'm going to stop reading this thread now, I think.  One too many "you're dad is not dead" references for me.  I didn't come here for you assholes to attack my dead father, I came here to debate



    You're full of sh*t smdio, thats why you won't be back.  You know there are people on here disproving all your made up stories and you have nothing more to say.
     
    reillym32
    reillym32
    Prospect
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Oct, 2008
    Posts: 55
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 9:20 AM ET #530

    Come on smdio, what do you have to say about the freefall video I posted.  This was one of your smoking guns.  Come on I want to hear what kind of crap you come up with to disprove it.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4
    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Come on smdio, what do you have to say about the freefall video I posted.  This was one of your smoking guns.  Come on I want to hear what kind of crap you come up with to disprove it.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4
     
    reillym32
    reillym32
    Prospect
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Oct, 2008
    Posts: 55
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 9:22 AM ET #531

    It must feel good smdio, that Rosie O' Donnell supports your claim.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4
    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    It must feel good smdio, that Rosie O' Donnell supports your claim.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4
     
    reillym32
    reillym32
    Prospect
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Oct, 2008
    Posts: 55
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 9:27 AM ET #532

    Oh wait a minute this isn't your claim, you got it from the movie loose change.  What did you watch that movie before you posted this and decide everything in it must be true.  I know you didn't research anything because you can't post any of your own research.  What did the government have you sign a confidentiality agreement as well.

    The real truth

    9 seconds what a Jack Ass

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4
    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Oh wait a minute this isn't your claim, you got it from the movie loose change.  What did you watch that movie before you posted this and decide everything in it must be true.  I know you didn't research anything because you can't post any of your own research.  What did the government have you sign a confidentiality agreement as well.

    The real truth

    9 seconds what a Jack Ass

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4
     
    smdio
    smdio
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Oct, 2010
    Posts: 1094
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 10:18 AM ET #533

    Quote Originally Posted by reillym32:

    Here is your video on the free fall crap.  Even puts a nice little timer in it for you.  Shows alot of angles too.  Just for you smdio.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

    You can't do better than this?

    The first clip of the towers collapsing in this video comes at frame 1:01.  The "timer" starts counting at the bottom of the screen, but the towers are not yet falling.  In fact, if you scroll the "toggle bar" on the bottom of the video, while paused, between :59 and 1:00, the timer on the bottom of the video screen goes from 0:00 to 0:02.  So it took YouTube 1 second to go from :59 to 1:00, but it took the "timer" in your video 2 second to go the same time?  Are you serious reilly?

    Secondly, the "timer" in your video starts almost a full 3.5 seconds before the Tower started to collapse. Just because the camera man turned his camera away from the Firefighters does not mean the tower had yet started to collapse.  From what I can see in that video, the tower started to collapse at roughly the 1:03 minute mark, which is just about 3.5-4.00 seconds -after- your "timer" had started.

    Now to the end of that "timer".  For some unknown reason, they stop the timer at the 14.75 second mark, even though the camera is no longer on the WTC.  It's safe to assume that the timer started too early, so lets subtract the "roughly" 4 seconds from the 14.75 number.  That would give us just about 11 seconds.  Now we're talking about the legitimacy of the actual 14.74 number.  Could this be off by a second or two?  Sure it could. 

    Columbia University measured the South Tower collapse at just under 10 seconds.  A "Richter Scale", the same device used to measure earthquakes, was only 3 miles away from Manhattan.  Using the same video you just posted, we can safely determine that the 10-second estimate of the collapsing South Tower is just about accurate.

    Now let's look at the second part of the video showing the South Tower collapse. Here we go:

    Your "timer" in this video starts at the 1:39 second mark, yet the "audio interference" chart superimposed on the screen doesn't start to show any audio interference until (at least) the 1:41 minute mark, and possibly even the 1:43 minute mark.  That's a full 2-4 seconds after your "timer" starting counting, and 5-6 seconds before the people in the video started screaming.  You actually hardly here any drastic noise from the South Tower falling until the 1:45 minute mark, which is a full 6 second after your "timer" starts counting.  The final time for the South Tower collapse, according to your own video, was 15.28 seconds.  It would have only been around 10 seconds, if the timer started counting correctly, which would have yet again put it in line with the Richter Scales at Columbia.

    Oh it gets even worse than that, for your "debunking" of the North Tower.

    At 2:04, you're timer starts, marking the begining of the collapse of the North Tower. For the first time in this video, I'll agree with you, the tower did officially start to collapse at that minute marker.  But what happens next?  Instead of showing that entire video clip of the tower collapsing (which would have debunked my claims, by the way), only 2 seconds into the fall, the camera angle switches to another view, which is completely different from the first view in which the "timer" started.  Why?  Why not show the entire clip from that viewpoint and camera angle?  Here's why:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3HTccsNFh8

    In this video, which is the same angle (albeit much further away) shown by reilly in his debunking claim, the North Tower begins to collapse at the :55 second mark. The "yellow" marks appearing on the bottom left of the video indicate strong seismic activity, or in other words, something that created shock/frequency waves. You can see at roughly the :45 second mark "something" greatly impacts the meter.  This "something" is also heard and seen in other videos of the North Tower collapse, in which tripods shake and people comment on an "explosion".  I believe that this "something" was the initial explosion(s) that cause the base of the North Tower to give way.

    Back to the collapse:  The North Tower begins to collapse at the :55 second mark, and the entire structure hits ground at roughly the 1:05 or 1:06 minute mark. This would yet again be inline with what Columbia University captured on their Richter Scales, which was roughly 10 seconds from start to finish.

     

    Okay.  Let's say that I admitt that the South and North towers were -not- falling at freefall speed.  Would you then admit, if I could prove it, that WTC7 fell as PRECISELY freefall speed?  And if that's the case, how?  Most likely controlled demolition, right?  But why demolish WTC7?  Hmm.

    You'll need to watch all 3 videos and if you don't, please don't try to debunk them.  In the first 2 parts of the videos, NIST actually admitts that WTC7 fell at freefall speed, 8 years after their initial investigation:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI0olsG6OEk&feature=related

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related

     

    You'll probably say David Chandler is a "quack", right?  Because that will surely dispute NIST admitting freefall speed.

    WTC7 fell in freefall speed.  I've been accused of saying things and not backing them up.  I've now backed it up. Please refute?

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Quote Originally Posted by reillym32:

    Here is your video on the free fall crap.  Even puts a nice little timer in it for you.  Shows alot of angles too.  Just for you smdio.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

    You can't do better than this?

    The first clip of the towers collapsing in this video comes at frame 1:01.  The "timer" starts counting at the bottom of the screen, but the towers are not yet falling.  In fact, if you scroll the "toggle bar" on the bottom of the video, while paused, between :59 and 1:00, the timer on the bottom of the video screen goes from 0:00 to 0:02.  So it took YouTube 1 second to go from :59 to 1:00, but it took the "timer" in your video 2 second to go the same time?  Are you serious reilly?

    Secondly, the "timer" in your video starts almost a full 3.5 seconds before the Tower started to collapse. Just because the camera man turned his camera away from the Firefighters does not mean the tower had yet started to collapse.  From what I can see in that video, the tower started to collapse at roughly the 1:03 minute mark, which is just about 3.5-4.00 seconds -after- your "timer" had started.

    Now to the end of that "timer".  For some unknown reason, they stop the timer at the 14.75 second mark, even though the camera is no longer on the WTC.  It's safe to assume that the timer started too early, so lets subtract the "roughly" 4 seconds from the 14.75 number.  That would give us just about 11 seconds.  Now we're talking about the legitimacy of the actual 14.74 number.  Could this be off by a second or two?  Sure it could. 

    Columbia University measured the South Tower collapse at just under 10 seconds.  A "Richter Scale", the same device used to measure earthquakes, was only 3 miles away from Manhattan.  Using the same video you just posted, we can safely determine that the 10-second estimate of the collapsing South Tower is just about accurate.

    Now let's look at the second part of the video showing the South Tower collapse. Here we go:

    Your "timer" in this video starts at the 1:39 second mark, yet the "audio interference" chart superimposed on the screen doesn't start to show any audio interference until (at least) the 1:41 minute mark, and possibly even the 1:43 minute mark.  That's a full 2-4 seconds after your "timer" starting counting, and 5-6 seconds before the people in the video started screaming.  You actually hardly here any drastic noise from the South Tower falling until the 1:45 minute mark, which is a full 6 second after your "timer" starts counting.  The final time for the South Tower collapse, according to your own video, was 15.28 seconds.  It would have only been around 10 seconds, if the timer started counting correctly, which would have yet again put it in line with the Richter Scales at Columbia.

    Oh it gets even worse than that, for your "debunking" of the North Tower.

    At 2:04, you're timer starts, marking the begining of the collapse of the North Tower. For the first time in this video, I'll agree with you, the tower did officially start to collapse at that minute marker.  But what happens next?  Instead of showing that entire video clip of the tower collapsing (which would have debunked my claims, by the way), only 2 seconds into the fall, the camera angle switches to another view, which is completely different from the first view in which the "timer" started.  Why?  Why not show the entire clip from that viewpoint and camera angle?  Here's why:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3HTccsNFh8

    In this video, which is the same angle (albeit much further away) shown by reilly in his debunking claim, the North Tower begins to collapse at the :55 second mark. The "yellow" marks appearing on the bottom left of the video indicate strong seismic activity, or in other words, something that created shock/frequency waves. You can see at roughly the :45 second mark "something" greatly impacts the meter.  This "something" is also heard and seen in other videos of the North Tower collapse, in which tripods shake and people comment on an "explosion".  I believe that this "something" was the initial explosion(s) that cause the base of the North Tower to give way.

    Back to the collapse:  The North Tower begins to collapse at the :55 second mark, and the entire structure hits ground at roughly the 1:05 or 1:06 minute mark. This would yet again be inline with what Columbia University captured on their Richter Scales, which was roughly 10 seconds from start to finish.

     

    Okay.  Let's say that I admitt that the South and North towers were -not- falling at freefall speed.  Would you then admit, if I could prove it, that WTC7 fell as PRECISELY freefall speed?  And if that's the case, how?  Most likely controlled demolition, right?  But why demolish WTC7?  Hmm.

    You'll need to watch all 3 videos and if you don't, please don't try to debunk them.  In the first 2 parts of the videos, NIST actually admitts that WTC7 fell at freefall speed, 8 years after their initial investigation:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI0olsG6OEk&feature=related

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related

     

    You'll probably say David Chandler is a "quack", right?  Because that will surely dispute NIST admitting freefall speed.

    WTC7 fell in freefall speed.  I've been accused of saying things and not backing them up.  I've now backed it up. Please refute?

     
    HutchEmAll
    HutchEmAll
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jan, 2004
    Posts: 38704
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 10:56 AM ET #534

    From the people who were there :

    "The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

     

    "Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

    ___________________

    Number 1, they anticipated the collapse....hence the reason that there was no one inside when it did.  If it was an inside job or controlled demolition, wouldn't they actually have wanted to kill some people?  Why wait for HOURS to set off the explosives?  Why not do it when all the firefighters arrived.  So a government who could pull of something as complicated as 9/11 couldn't even figure out when to blow up one small building in order to cause the most damage. 

    You are now grasping at straws.  Question after question after question has been addressed.  Your engineers have been shown to be frauds.  Your information has been shown to be incomplete.

    You get beat up on the WTC's so now you're going after WTC7.  Maybe you can get Mr. Jones to say that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.  Oh, wait, he's already made an ass out of himself.

    You're out of bullets folks. 

    Still waiting for an answer to my ONE question which keeps getting ignored.  But you don't have one so you just have to keep bringing up additional issues to try and muddy the water.  But that's what conspiracy fools do so I'm not surprised.

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User

    From the people who were there :

    "The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

     

    "Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

    ___________________

    Number 1, they anticipated the collapse....hence the reason that there was no one inside when it did.  If it was an inside job or controlled demolition, wouldn't they actually have wanted to kill some people?  Why wait for HOURS to set off the explosives?  Why not do it when all the firefighters arrived.  So a government who could pull of something as complicated as 9/11 couldn't even figure out when to blow up one small building in order to cause the most damage. 

    You are now grasping at straws.  Question after question after question has been addressed.  Your engineers have been shown to be frauds.  Your information has been shown to be incomplete.

    You get beat up on the WTC's so now you're going after WTC7.  Maybe you can get Mr. Jones to say that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.  Oh, wait, he's already made an ass out of himself.

    You're out of bullets folks. 

    Still waiting for an answer to my ONE question which keeps getting ignored.  But you don't have one so you just have to keep bringing up additional issues to try and muddy the water.  But that's what conspiracy fools do so I'm not surprised.

     
    smdio
    smdio
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Oct, 2010
    Posts: 1094
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 11:03 AM ET #535

    Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:

    From the people who were there :

    "The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

     

    "Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

    ___________________

    Number 1, they anticipated the collapse....hence the reason that there was no one inside when it did.  If it was an inside job or controlled demolition, wouldn't they actually have wanted to kill some people?  Why wait for HOURS to set off the explosives?  Why not do it when all the firefighters arrived.  So a government who could pull of something as complicated as 9/11 couldn't even figure out when to blow up one small building in order to cause the most damage. 

    You are now grasping at straws.  Question after question after question has been addressed.  Your engineers have been shown to be frauds.  Your information has been shown to be incomplete.

    You get beat up on the WTC's so now you're going after WTC7.  Maybe you can get Mr. Jones to say that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.  Oh, wait, he's already made an ass out of himself.

    You're out of bullets folks. 

    Still waiting for an answer to my ONE question which keeps getting ignored.  But you don't have one so you just have to keep bringing up additional issues to try and muddy the water.  But that's what conspiracy fools do so I'm not surprised.

    You can quote 100 people, and I'll quote 100 people back.  Your quotes from people "that were there " mean nothing to me.  I'll contradict every single statement above with statements of other witnesses to the events.  We can go on for days at that.

    You want an engineer?  How about the NIST guys, who openly admitted that WTC7 fell at Freefall speed?  Is that enough for you Hutch, or wait, let me guess, you didnt watch any of the above videos.

    Yep, that explains it.

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:

    From the people who were there :

    "The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

     

    "Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

    ___________________

    Number 1, they anticipated the collapse....hence the reason that there was no one inside when it did.  If it was an inside job or controlled demolition, wouldn't they actually have wanted to kill some people?  Why wait for HOURS to set off the explosives?  Why not do it when all the firefighters arrived.  So a government who could pull of something as complicated as 9/11 couldn't even figure out when to blow up one small building in order to cause the most damage. 

    You are now grasping at straws.  Question after question after question has been addressed.  Your engineers have been shown to be frauds.  Your information has been shown to be incomplete.

    You get beat up on the WTC's so now you're going after WTC7.  Maybe you can get Mr. Jones to say that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.  Oh, wait, he's already made an ass out of himself.

    You're out of bullets folks. 

    Still waiting for an answer to my ONE question which keeps getting ignored.  But you don't have one so you just have to keep bringing up additional issues to try and muddy the water.  But that's what conspiracy fools do so I'm not surprised.

    You can quote 100 people, and I'll quote 100 people back.  Your quotes from people "that were there " mean nothing to me.  I'll contradict every single statement above with statements of other witnesses to the events.  We can go on for days at that.

    You want an engineer?  How about the NIST guys, who openly admitted that WTC7 fell at Freefall speed?  Is that enough for you Hutch, or wait, let me guess, you didnt watch any of the above videos.

    Yep, that explains it.

     
    HutchEmAll
    HutchEmAll
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jan, 2004
    Posts: 38704
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 11:06 AM ET #536

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash_Man:

    A little more info...

    Apparently even some NYC school kids knew something was coming down. In the October 2002 issue of Insight Magazine, journalist Jeffrey Scott Shapiro reported that a high school freshman at New Utrecht HS in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, may have known in advance that the World Trade Center would be attacked. When this claim came to Shapiro's attention, he followed up on the story by talking to the boy's teacher, Antoinette DiLorenzo. During a lesson a week before the attacks, DiLorenzo noticed the boy, a Palestinian, looking out a window. "What are you looking at?" she asked. The boy's response, in hindsight, was chilling: "Do you see those two buildings?" he asked while pointing at the World Trade Center. "They won't be standing there next week."

    This was not the only incident like this that apparently occurred in the days before the attacks. Shapiro also reported that a 6th grade student at another school passed on a similar warning to his teacher on September 10, 2001. "Essentially, he warned her to stay away from lower Manhattan because something bad was going to happen," said Sgt. Edgar Martinez, deputy director of police services for the Jersey City Police Department, according to Shapiro. Yet another boy had heard of the impending attacks and warned his classmates. "He warned them not to ride any city buses because he had been told at his mosque the week before to stay off all public transportation for a while," said one NYPD Officer quoted by Shapiro. "He said it wouldn't be safe"

     

    There you have it folks.  Multiple schools with students who knew of attacks coming.  I have a feeling our CIA is a little more competent than that. 

    Here is another Fact to chew on.  Members of the 9-11 Commission have come forward saying the report did not tell the whole truth, because they were repeatedly stonewalled and denied access to certain information.  Bush refused to give up information, and had to be subpoenaed to part with some of it.  Dick refused to testify under oath.  And to top it all off, the report only covers events leading up to the attacks.  It does not touch the fall of the towers.  So the most important investigation in our country's history, doesn't even cover the actual site/evidence of the crime??  Really?? 

    This is exactly how the conspiracy kooks work.  When the evidence doesn't back them up, they turn to the supernatural....or even the made up. 

    The biggest conspiracy in history....so big in fact....and so secure....that NYC kids even knew about it. 

    I'm surprised you weren't in on it, flash. 

    Everyone knows about it, but no one has been able to come up with the detailed plans as to how the government pulled it off. 

    Comical. 

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash_Man:

    A little more info...

    Apparently even some NYC school kids knew something was coming down. In the October 2002 issue of Insight Magazine, journalist Jeffrey Scott Shapiro reported that a high school freshman at New Utrecht HS in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, may have known in advance that the World Trade Center would be attacked. When this claim came to Shapiro's attention, he followed up on the story by talking to the boy's teacher, Antoinette DiLorenzo. During a lesson a week before the attacks, DiLorenzo noticed the boy, a Palestinian, looking out a window. "What are you looking at?" she asked. The boy's response, in hindsight, was chilling: "Do you see those two buildings?" he asked while pointing at the World Trade Center. "They won't be standing there next week."

    This was not the only incident like this that apparently occurred in the days before the attacks. Shapiro also reported that a 6th grade student at another school passed on a similar warning to his teacher on September 10, 2001. "Essentially, he warned her to stay away from lower Manhattan because something bad was going to happen," said Sgt. Edgar Martinez, deputy director of police services for the Jersey City Police Department, according to Shapiro. Yet another boy had heard of the impending attacks and warned his classmates. "He warned them not to ride any city buses because he had been told at his mosque the week before to stay off all public transportation for a while," said one NYPD Officer quoted by Shapiro. "He said it wouldn't be safe"

     

    There you have it folks.  Multiple schools with students who knew of attacks coming.  I have a feeling our CIA is a little more competent than that. 

    Here is another Fact to chew on.  Members of the 9-11 Commission have come forward saying the report did not tell the whole truth, because they were repeatedly stonewalled and denied access to certain information.  Bush refused to give up information, and had to be subpoenaed to part with some of it.  Dick refused to testify under oath.  And to top it all off, the report only covers events leading up to the attacks.  It does not touch the fall of the towers.  So the most important investigation in our country's history, doesn't even cover the actual site/evidence of the crime??  Really?? 

    This is exactly how the conspiracy kooks work.  When the evidence doesn't back them up, they turn to the supernatural....or even the made up. 

    The biggest conspiracy in history....so big in fact....and so secure....that NYC kids even knew about it. 

    I'm surprised you weren't in on it, flash. 

    Everyone knows about it, but no one has been able to come up with the detailed plans as to how the government pulled it off. 

    Comical. 

     
    smdio
    smdio
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Oct, 2010
    Posts: 1094
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 11:09 AM ET #537

    Quote Originally Posted by reillym32:

    Oh wait a minute this isn't your claim, you got it from the movie loose change.  What did you watch that movie before you posted this and decide everything in it must be true.  I know you didn't research anything because you can't post any of your own research.  What did the government have you sign a confidentiality agreement as well.

    The real truth

    9 seconds what a Jack Ass

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

    I actually can't stop laughing at you right now

    I keep watching your "damning" video evidence.  Please fast-forward to 2:20 in the clip, where they attempt to highlight the "outline" of the top of the tower.

    1.)  I can draw the face of Jesus Christ in that freeze frame.  Does that mean Jesus was there that day?  You're such a tool.

    2.)  The supposed "outline" is attempting to highlight the very top of the Tower, with the antenna being at the immediate top-left of the outline.  This peice of debris had clearly already broken up and fallen when you look at the beginning of the same video, at the very inital point of collapse.

    Seriously man, I can't stop laughing.  Especially since you came here like "hahaha SMDIO I dare you to reply to THIS!!"

    Rofl

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User

    Quote Originally Posted by reillym32:

    Oh wait a minute this isn't your claim, you got it from the movie loose change.  What did you watch that movie before you posted this and decide everything in it must be true.  I know you didn't research anything because you can't post any of your own research.  What did the government have you sign a confidentiality agreement as well.

    The real truth

    9 seconds what a Jack Ass

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

    I actually can't stop laughing at you right now

    I keep watching your "damning" video evidence.  Please fast-forward to 2:20 in the clip, where they attempt to highlight the "outline" of the top of the tower.

    1.)  I can draw the face of Jesus Christ in that freeze frame.  Does that mean Jesus was there that day?  You're such a tool.

    2.)  The supposed "outline" is attempting to highlight the very top of the Tower, with the antenna being at the immediate top-left of the outline.  This peice of debris had clearly already broken up and fallen when you look at the beginning of the same video, at the very inital point of collapse.

    Seriously man, I can't stop laughing.  Especially since you came here like "hahaha SMDIO I dare you to reply to THIS!!"

    Rofl

     
    ABooksNightmare
    ABooksNightmare
    Hall of Fame
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jul, 2004
    Posts: 26633
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 11:37 AM ET #538

    COVERS allows u to tell someone they are sexually frustrated so long as ur hands are clean
    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
     
    smdio
    smdio
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Oct, 2010
    Posts: 1094
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 11:43 AM ET #539

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucGCs0hl9S8&feature=related

    Now I don't claim that Flight 77 was shot down.  But did Donald Rumsfield not just say that?

    But wait.  Wasn't the official story that the plane crash landed?

    Little Lie = Big Lie

     

     

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucGCs0hl9S8&feature=related

    Now I don't claim that Flight 77 was shot down.  But did Donald Rumsfield not just say that?

    But wait.  Wasn't the official story that the plane crash landed?

    Little Lie = Big Lie

     

     

     
    smdio
    smdio
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Oct, 2010
    Posts: 1094
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 11:45 AM ET #540

    Flight 93*

    Sorry, I slipped.  Like Rumsfeld.

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User

    Flight 93*

    Sorry, I slipped.  Like Rumsfeld.

     
    smdio
    smdio
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Oct, 2010
    Posts: 1094
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 11:50 AM ET #541

    You only have to listen to this idiot talk to know there's a cover up

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60&feature=related

    Little Lie = Big Lie

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User

    You only have to listen to this idiot talk to know there's a cover up

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60&feature=related

    Little Lie = Big Lie

     
    ABooksNightmare
    ABooksNightmare
    Hall of Fame
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jul, 2004
    Posts: 26633
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 12:02 PM ET #542

    COVERS allows u to tell someone they are sexually frustrated so long as ur hands are clean
    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
     
    smdio
    smdio
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Oct, 2010
    Posts: 1094
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 12:15 PM ET #543

    ReillyM, this ones for you! 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kBIbz-jXrM&feature=related

    Ladies and gentlemen.  We can now put this thread to rest with clarity.

    It was SATAN !!!! --NOT-- the U.S. Government!!!

     

    Do you see how this type of response kills the debate of the thread?  Stop being fucking childish and debate, not name call or make fun of my dead father. 

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User

    ReillyM, this ones for you! 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kBIbz-jXrM&feature=related

    Ladies and gentlemen.  We can now put this thread to rest with clarity.

    It was SATAN !!!! --NOT-- the U.S. Government!!!

     

    Do you see how this type of response kills the debate of the thread?  Stop being fucking childish and debate, not name call or make fun of my dead father. 

     
    UKCrunch
    UKCrunch
    Prospect
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2010
    Posts: 222
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 12:21 PM ET #544

    Personally, I'm not sure which is scarier. The fateful events of that tragic day or the obsessive and totally blinkered views of the conspiracy theorists.

    Furthermore, as far as I know, there hasn't been a single court case where any of this, so called *evidence* has ever been presented or substantiated. That to me says it all really.

    The way things are currently going, the inevitable is that a *conspiracy theory* saturation point will be reached. At which time, presumably, the only possible conclusion is that the whole world was in on the conspiracy. Well, the whole world less the conspiracy theorists that is.
    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Personally, I'm not sure which is scarier. The fateful events of that tragic day or the obsessive and totally blinkered views of the conspiracy theorists.

    Furthermore, as far as I know, there hasn't been a single court case where any of this, so called *evidence* has ever been presented or substantiated. That to me says it all really.

    The way things are currently going, the inevitable is that a *conspiracy theory* saturation point will be reached. At which time, presumably, the only possible conclusion is that the whole world was in on the conspiracy. Well, the whole world less the conspiracy theorists that is.
     
    smdio
    smdio
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Oct, 2010
    Posts: 1094
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 12:28 PM ET #545

    Larry Silverstein on his decision, along with the FDNY, to "pull it", sighting that they could not control the WTC7 fire, and instead decided to demolish the building

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

    Little Lie = Big Lie

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User

    Larry Silverstein on his decision, along with the FDNY, to "pull it", sighting that they could not control the WTC7 fire, and instead decided to demolish the building

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

    Little Lie = Big Lie

     
    smdio
    smdio
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Oct, 2010
    Posts: 1094
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 12:34 PM ET #546

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s&feature=related

    BBC America was alerted that WTC7 had collapsed, and then reported it live.  In the video, WTC7 is still standing behind the reporter.

    Little Lie = Big Lie

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s&feature=related

    BBC America was alerted that WTC7 had collapsed, and then reported it live.  In the video, WTC7 is still standing behind the reporter.

    Little Lie = Big Lie

     
    HutchEmAll
    HutchEmAll
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jan, 2004
    Posts: 38704
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 12:40 PM ET #547

    How long are the CT's going to continually call the firemen liars?  I suppose they were in on it as well?  None of them said anything about any explosions.  Here is what we have:

    As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, let's review the evidence...

    What we do have for sure.

    1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

    2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".

    3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

    4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

    5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

    6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

    7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

    8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.

    9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?

    10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.

    11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"

    12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.

    What we don't have...

    1) Clear view of the large hole

    2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact

    3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side

    4) Any sign of an actual explosive.

    Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.

    9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why?

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User

    How long are the CT's going to continually call the firemen liars?  I suppose they were in on it as well?  None of them said anything about any explosions.  Here is what we have:

    As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, let's review the evidence...

    What we do have for sure.

    1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

    2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".

    3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

    4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

    5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

    6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

    7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

    8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.

    9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?

    10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.

    11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"

    12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.

    What we don't have...

    1) Clear view of the large hole

    2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact

    3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side

    4) Any sign of an actual explosive.

    Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.

    9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why?

     
    ABooksNightmare
    ABooksNightmare
    Hall of Fame
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jul, 2004
    Posts: 26633
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 12:41 PM ET #548

    COVERS allows u to tell someone they are sexually frustrated so long as ur hands are clean
    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
     
    smdio
    smdio
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Oct, 2010
    Posts: 1094
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 12:54 PM ET #549

    Maybe you ignored my request to stop posting random quotes.  Any quote you provide by a firefight, witness, or otherwise, I can respond with 2 more than contradict your quotes.  We can be here for 7 days doing that, and another 22 pages.

    Losing your luster, Hutch? 

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User

    Maybe you ignored my request to stop posting random quotes.  Any quote you provide by a firefight, witness, or otherwise, I can respond with 2 more than contradict your quotes.  We can be here for 7 days doing that, and another 22 pages.

    Losing your luster, Hutch? 

     
     
    smdio
    smdio
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Oct, 2010
    Posts: 1094
    Posted: Oct. 29, 2010 - 12:56 PM ET #550

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eSkvV_r6DE&feature=related

    Some video evidence of "something" flying by the pentagon, as very low altitude

    Although I must admit this is not very good proof of a plane carrying a missile, it begs the question of "Where are the videos of Flight 77 hitting the pentagon" to be answered, wouldnt you agree?

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eSkvV_r6DE&feature=related

    Some video evidence of "something" flying by the pentagon, as very low altitude

    Although I must admit this is not very good proof of a plane carrying a missile, it begs the question of "Where are the videos of Flight 77 hitting the pentagon" to be answered, wouldnt you agree?

    All Forums | General Discussion
    «First Previous 222324 ... 616263 Next Last»

    Hot Forums IconHot Forum Topics

    • 🤢🥴💩_ Fubah's risky baseball bets _🥶😲🥵 445,769 Covers arrow
    • Tuesday 09/08/2026 974 Covers arrow
    • 🏈🏈🏈 Fubah2's risky CFB bets 253,219 Covers arrow
    • Couple thoughts 3,626 Covers arrow
    • Tuesday 2,764 Covers arrow
    • 9/8 POD 🔥🔥???? 3,027 Covers arrow
    • Breathtaking ....truly 20,479 Covers arrow
    • We have picked a terrible time to have the stupidest president ever 26,698 Covers arrow
    • Obviously the true face of the republican party 30,556 Covers arrow
    • pg mlb 2026 season thread 6,321 Covers arrow

    Warning - External Link

    Report User

    Thank you for reporting
    This content is abusive or harmful
    This post is spam
    An error has occurred
    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    Delete Post

    Are you sure you would like to remove this post?

    Remove Thread

    Are you sure you would like to remove this thread?

    Scan Results

    Login/Register

    Happy to have you join the conversation. To do so, please login or create an account.
    Accounts are free and easy to create.

    Search


    Loading…

    Loading…

    About Us
    Contact Us
    Careers
    Our Team
    Brand
    Testimonials
    Betting Guides
    Sportsbook Reviews
    Betting News
    Podcasts
    Responsible Gambling
    Betting Sites
    US Betting Sites
    Canada Betting Sites
    Canada Casinos
    Best Betting Apps
    Contests
    Streak Survivor
    King of Covers
    Ultimate Race
    Office Pools
    The Covers community has
    810,221
    lifetime members worldwide
    Join our community today
    Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
    Covers is the world
    leader in sports
    betting information.
    21+
    Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER
    Help Privacy Terms of Service Cookies Sitemap Forum
    YouTube logo
    Facebook logo
    Twitter logo
    Instagram logo
    LinkedIn logo
    Google News logo
    Covers is verified safe by:
    Evalon Logo Logo GPWA Logo GDPR logo Logo GeoTrust logo Logo PCI DSS logo Logo
    Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
    If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.