The Obama administration has continued to seek expansive Executive Branch powers in the name of defeating al Qaeda. Yet the same degree of excessive secrecy in relation to 9/11 has continued. Evidently citizens are supposed to be intimidated into accepting the "correct" narrative.

Is it asking too much for powerful officials to account for their conduct?

backwards.

of citizens being intimidated into accepting the "correct" narrative.


Thanks in advance.

Sorry noise, according to some it absolutely is too much to ask. And you're right, some would like to intimidate us into accepting the correct narative, but it isn't working very well.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

why does vigorous debate rattle "9/11 was an inside job" types so much?

is vigorous debate, right? At least that's how fair and balanced debates are always done on rightwing talk shows, right?

more people would be open to your ideas.
what were the original destinations for the planes on 9/11?
tell us again how they "flew all over the country wasting fuel".

I'm not sure, but I think that last part applies to factual errors, not just incivility.

That said, I'd love to see better posts and fewer bravura performances of martyrdom.

9/11 Families to March on City Hall as City Seeks to Stop Fresh Probe of Attacks From Going on November Ballot

NEW YORK, Sept. 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- On Sunday, September 27 at 2 p.m., The New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN), a group comprising 9/11 family members, first responders and survivors, will march from Battery Park to City Hall in protest of the City's attempt to block the referendum for a fresh probe of the 9/11 attacks from going on the November ballot.
This week NYC CAN submitted a memorandum of law in response to the City's challenge of the petition's legality. The Court-appointed referee is scheduled to submit his report and recommendations to the Court on Monday, September 28. The Court will decide whether or not to adopt the referee's recommendations and then issue a decision, after which appeals will likely follow immediately. "The arguments are strong on both sides, so the judges will have some thinking and analyzing to do," said Dennis McMahon, the Petitioners' attorney. "No other case pending in the New York courts has a higher priority on the calendars than this one, so we should have a definitive answer by next week."

If the Court decides in NYC CAN's favor and 15,000 of the 28,000 additional signatures submitted on September 4 are deemed valid by the City Clerk, the referendum will go on this November's ballot. If the referendum passes, it would lead to the creation of a local, independent commission with subpoena power that would be tasked with comprehensively reinvestigating the attacks. For more info: http://www.nyccan.org.

What do you say, OTOH, will it pass?

Despite the city trying to shush the people demanding a ballot reforendum, they apparently aren't shushing very well. Scary isn't it.

I have no idea. First the court would have to find in favor of the petition's legality; if the petitioner's own attorney really says that "the arguments are strong on both sides," then that isn't and shouldn't be a slam dunk.


Frankly, not only isn't it scary, but I don't think it's very interesting, for reasons I've already stated.

Again, if even the petitioner's own attorney concedes that there are strong arguments against placing the referendum on the ballot, then to say that the city is "trying to shush the people demanding a" referendum seems to trivialize serious legal issues. But that's your privilege. I don't think it matters much how this turns out.

What's wrong with the people winning one now and then? You aren't interested in the people winning? You're bored with that idea?

You do know of course that the petition has been denied repeatedly. The court did finally have to concede on the discounted signatures and that still wasn't enough.

But I'm sure you're familiar with lawyerese .... they have careers to worry about, too.

Who appointed you to speak on behalf of "the people"?

Would you have known about the march if I hadn't posted the press release for you? You'd have been in the dark again. Do you like it there?

I don't think the march is consequential. If you want to construe that as liking the dark, that's your prerogative. You can make this as pointlessly antagonistic as the DU moderators allow.

Back on September 14, we had a little colloquy that went like this:


Now, I don't generally feel that the best that I can do is to support other people's efforts. I don't want to be part of a crescendo of voices singing in perfect harmony. That may explain why knowing how many people marched this September 27 seems more important to you than it is to me. Or not. I really don't know.

"I don't want to be part of a crescendo of voices singing in perfect harmony."

All I can say to that is ... then why are you performing with the official story orchestra?

As far as I can tell, the "official story" is a construct of people who like to pride themselves on not believing "it." I won't pretend to believe in thermite charges, or pod-planes, or whatever in the vain hope that it will make me seem more edgy or independent-minded. I'm willing to entertain reasoned arguments for any view whatsoever, but saying that I'm "performing with the official story orchestra" isn't a reasoned argument.

of the official reports that you would question? A paragraph, a sentence, a misplaced comma ... anything? On your own, I mean, not as any part of a "construct"?

But before I elaborate, maybe you could tell me which reports you regard as "official."

Take your pick. Actually that would be a good thread. Hope you'll consider opening a new one and documenting all the "stuff" you question from any report you choose.

You haven't even been willing to discuss the evidence of bowing -- or your own "evidence" about software on the plane. How much could you possibly take away from my attempt to rehash, say, the debate about fireproofing?

Several years ago I exchanged a few emails with James Quintiere. Basically, Quintiere thought that while NIST puts a lot of emphasis on fireproofing being knocked off the columns, he suspected that the fireproofing was inherently inadequate. He argued that the destruction of most of the steel made that possibility even harder to assess. (But he was pretty surprised to have been coopted by self-identified Truth Movement folks, which is what I asked him about.) I don't know what he thinks now.

The underlying forensic problem is very difficult. In some parts of their analysis, NIST could make heavy use of evidence from photographs and videotapes -- but when it comes to matters like the extent of the structural damage done by the impacting planes, how much insulation was knocked off, or much of the behavior of the fires, there couldn't possibly be adequate direct evidence. NIST had to depend heavily on computer modeling and indirect experimentation. So there's no way that the NIST report could have offered the last word. For many purposes that doesn't matter very much: it isn't necessary to reconstruct the exact extent of structural damage in order to make recommendations for future projects. Nevertheless, there are unanswered questions galore, as usual when trying to understand complex phenomena. I could drive myself nuts trying to enumerate the questions I've been curious about at various points, but I can't imagine what would make it a good thread.

You admit that, "NIST had to depend heavily on computer modeling and indirect experimentation. So there's no way that the NIST report could have offered the last word. For many purposes that doesn't matter very much: it isn't necessary to reconstruct the exact extent of structural damage in order to make recommendations for future projects."

Maybe a case of garbage in, garbage out? Computers are very cooperative that way.

So never mind what really happened that day, or why it happened, or who benefitted, or who was guilty, "it doesn't matter very much" ... just get away from there skeptic, we only want to prevent it from happening again. Well, I have a fool proof plan!!! Lets ban airplanes. It would even prevent plane crashes due to hitting a flock of geese. Good thing geese have never been known to blow up.

But I do agree with one thing you said: they probably won't have the last word.

It isn't a matter of "admit"ting. It's a matter of understanding how things work. Unfortunately, if you have any interest in understanding how things work, you consistently choose to conceal it. That is a shame.

"Maybe a case of garbage in, garbage out?" Hey, if you have a criticism of NIST's model inputs, step right up. Just saying that it's logically possible for the models to be wrong doesn't actually cut any ice: everyone who is serious about this issue already knew that. However, as SDuderstadt has repeatedly pointed out, there's actually observable evidence of the towers failing before they actually collapsed. Many in the 9/11 truth movement appear to be in complete denial about that evidence (as you seem to be); the rest is trying to come up with ways for thermite (and/or something else) to, more or less, mimic the effects of fire and structural damage.

Suspecting controlled demolition because we can't tell exactly how much insulation was knocked off the structure is sort of like suspecting that extraterrestrials caused the Columbia disaster because we can't precisely model every aspect of how the shuttle failed. Either one is logically possible, but I haven't seen credible evidence of either. If Steve Jones ever manages to make a decent case, hey, I'll be around.

Insulation Failures

NIST theory relies on the steel on several floors being cleansed of their fireproofing by plane crash.
NIST tests its theory by fireing a shotgun at a piece of metal in a box covered with fireproofing.
NIST provides no argument to support the idea that the jet impact would act like so many shotgun blasts.
Tests demonstrate that the fireproofing would not be knocked off. It would have to be sheared off.




And then there's Building 7. No smoking shotgun.

You'll have to do more work than that to convince me that you know what the NIST report says.

Actually, you'll have a hard time overcoming that. Are you copying and pasting from a PowerPoint presentation, or just thinking in bullet points tonight?

how could I forget those mock office cubicles they set up and burned, apparently in an attempt to prove office fires can melt steel.

BTW, bullets and power point do work well in some instances. Short and sweet.

Why would NIST attempt to "prove office fires can melt steel"?

It was through their simulation that NIST declared in its Final Report that Building 7 was the first steel-framed skyscraper ever to collapse solely due to ordinary office fires. And NIST actually DID admit to 2 1/2 seconds of absolute freefall acceleration through the path of greatest resistance. "Impossible!", many trained professionals declare (see http://www.ae911truth.org/. Architect Richard Gage's presentation "911: Blueprint for Truth" is the best. Watch it there for free).

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-23/911-experiments-newton-vs-nist

That they did this "test" is in their own reports, but I hate PDF so I guess you're on your own there.

again you parade your abject ignorance of 9/11. The "official story" doesn't rest on fires "melting" steel. Duh.

OMG, finally something we agree on!!! As far as I can tell, the official story rests almost solely on the refusal of most Americans to accept the idea that anyone besides those radical terrorist islamomaniacs would do such an ugly thing. After all we've had decades and decades and decades of msm and hollywood movies and fiction novelists and rightwing talkshow hosts pounding that into our heads.

*edited for typo

*edited again to revise that "most" Americans to "some" Americans. Most have decided differently.

... a link is supposed to be included.
 

So shoot me.

Or put me on ignore.

Or try to have me banned.

I'll feel a little like the NYCCAN marchers or the One Nation marchers. Good company to be in.

... it seems to me that posters should be mindful of the DU rules regarding copyrighted material. In my opinion, a reminder when someone doesn't adhere to those rules does not seem out of line.

I thought perhaps when OnTheOtherHand asked if you were "copying and pasting from a PowerPoint presentation" that you might provide the source for the content of your prior post. I also thought my reply would be an opportunity to post a link to the original content of your post, but maybe for you it was not.
 

to right click on the picture and check properties? And I don't think 911research is going to pitch a ##### about the link being omitted, most people could figure out how to get there.

I don't believe the issue regarding copyrighted material is whether or not you think what you have posted will cause a problem, but rather trying to follow the guidelines of the administrators of DU so that it is less likely to cause a situation for them.

And since you mentioned the picture, perhaps I should also remind you of the following DU rule:


So, did you obtain permission from the owner of 911research.wtc7.net to post that picture?
 

if its a really big deal for you, try to get me banned. Not including the link was not deliberate in any way and you know it, even though you seem quite determined to make it appear so.

Or maybe you can check with the web owners of 911research and try to get me sued. Or something. I'm sure the administrators of DU would thank you for your effort.

But maybe you'll give me a break here and show us how it really should be done by posting a link with pictures and an abbreviated explanation of all the methods and findings of the official version in their insulation simulations and studies. C'mon, impress me.

are you on a deliberate campaign to alienate everyone here?

Then when your reaction seemed out of proportion to my original reply, I thought I would point out that you could have simply posted the link in response to comments about your use of those powerpoint items. In fact, you could still post the link if you so desired. But instead it seems you would rather try to get me to do your research for you.

If you want to know what is in the NIST report, it is available for download from their website - I'm sure you can figure out how to get there. You are the only one stopping you from learning what is in the NIST report.
 

dude...do you see the source of this? It's PRNewswire. What do you think that means? Hint: NYCCAN wrote it, It's a fucking press release, not a hard news story.

Duh.

mainstream media is conspiring to keep news of this march quiet? Shoot, the Macy's Day parade gets more coverage than this one.

Some people like pretzels, but no thanks. Keep twisting, though.

duh.

Serious question: do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem?

if news of this march shows up in any major media.

Keywords: NYCCAN march on city hall sept 29

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=NYCCAN+march+on+city+hall+sept+29&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701

Well, besides Reuters.

You just answered your own question. Duh.

You're as transparent as saran wrap.

I like that about you.

I'll try to think of something I like about you.

It might take a while.

you'll find more acceptance.

take your time.

Unless I missed a link....

Let me be the first to say that I don't think getting 300 New Yorkers to march evinces widespread popular support. To be fair, I don't think it evinces much of anything.

Nine years on, the "truth movement" seems pretty moribund to me.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS85598+29-Sep-2009+PRN20090929

November 20, 2008
NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbeat/tbx2008_1120_wtc7.htm

There were nine years between 2008 and 2010? Jeez, I missed them.

duh.

respond to correspondence before you receive a letter? Or ask for an A+ on a report before you've submitted it? Or challenge a finding before its been made?

For many people, the official finding on the collapse of building 7 was the crux of the matter and that report didn't come out until 2008, but you would had have someone launching a challenge to it 2 years before it was even written? Your reasoning defies logic.

It's pretty stupid to claim the "truth movement" is merely about WTC 7. Learn to read more carefully.

but HELL no, its not only about WTC7 and no one ever claimed it was, but I think that report could be characterized as the last straw for many people in the truth movement.

you should order more straws.

The science-denial of the "truth movement" is legendary. By the way, did you see that you just conceded my point? It's been NINE years.

9/11 First Responders Gravely Ill
Report Says 70 Percent of First Responders Have Severe Lung Illnesses

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2409716&page=1

and nearly 900 of those heroes have died in those nine years from breathing the air that "was NOT safe to breathe", and just this past week they were finally awarded medical care .. after NINE years.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

but what does it have to do with what we were talking about?

I wasn't aware of the time that has lapsed. It probably seemed one hell of a lot longer to these poor souls who died by inches for serving their city.

If you'll look back at that press release, many of the people who showd up at city hall with the petition are the family members of those who died and those who are dying and you guys MOCKED them for being such a puny bunch. I find that appalling.

dude. More of your misrepresentation.

Anyone who doubts it can read the thread. But Reuters ... yeah, that was pretty wide coverage for the people who lost loved ones serving NYC on that day. Where was the Times? Where was the Post? Where were cnncnbcabcnbc who all think Lindsay Lohan is big news?

immune, if you could support your attack, why wouldn't you?

As I've mentioned, my brother-in-law is FDNY. He spent hundreds of hours at Ground Zero. I truly don't need your lectures on empathy for the survivors. They should not be treated as pawns in your online debates.

What I said (and what SDuderstadt agreed with) was that getting 300 people to march didn't evince widespread popular support. It doesn't. That observation has nothing to do with mocking the participants, family members or otherwise.

this like earlier when immune was going on and on about what his "colonel" friend told him, without once disclosing that the man had since passed away, tyhen trying to bust our chops for mocking a dead man. Very underhanded and, I might add, desperate tactic.

Mocking his death? No, you were mocking his credentials.

Show me where I "mocked his credentials". I took issue with the fact that he drew his conclusions about remote control before the day was out.

Either you enjoy deliberately misrepresenting what people have actually have said or, as I have mentioned before, you appear to have some sort of serious cognitive impairment.

take it to the thread in question.

OTOH: "Let me be the first to say that I don't think getting 300 New Yorkers to march evinces widespread popular support. To be fair, I don't think it evinces much of anything."

Not that some of them are the families of people who were killed and who are still dying doing their duty to their city and nation.

Nothing to see there, just move on.

In no way does that statement mock the participants.

I don't have to retract any part of that statement.

So ... do you think the Times should have covered this event?

I think your inability to support your assertion, and your refusal to retract it, speak for themselves.

In general I don't think a march of a few hundred people has a strong claim to coverage, but I have no idea whether the Times "should" have covered this one.

I could have almost written that response myself and I can't help but harken back to the other day when you called me "indifferent".

I don't usually retract things I believe to be true, particularly an OPINION .. how would that require support?

Suppose I accuse you of murder. And you point out that you never murdered anyone. And I say, "I don't usually retract things I believe to be true, particularly an OPINION .. how would that require support?"

Yeah, crazy talk. Why should an OPINION require support? Maybe this is close to the heart of our problems. I think an unsupported opinion isn't worth much. YMMV.

Now, if you think that "mocking" is a completely subjective evaluation with no truth value whatsoever, then I guess I can just make a note to myself that you reserve the right to make up certain stuff, and we can move forward (or sideways?) on that basis. It might be useful if you could enumerate the stuff that you feel entitled to make up.

As far as I can tell, I never have called you "indifferent." However, I wrote, "what comes across is indifference. I care about what happened on 9/11. It bothers me that you apparently don't, yet want to post about it anyway." And I amplified: "your indifference is behavioral(.) You post things without apparent regard to whether they are correct. It doesn't really matter how you feel about it, except to the extent that it illuminates your motivations for posting bad content." Since I posted those things, you've provided further examples -- including this one -- of posting things without apparent regard to whether they are correct. Since on at least one occasion you did eventually admit your error, maybe I would now upgrade "indifference" to "recklessness," but the behavioral problem continues.

you said "what I said" came across as being indifferent and I take it to mean that's not supposed to be the same thing as accusing me of being indifferent ... okay, I guess. But that was your "opinion" of my "attitude" and the same goes in reverse. So let me rephrase: In my opinion "the comments you made came across as mocking" the puny attendence at the march. Is that better? Is that the retraction you were seeking? God almighty.

Yeah, when you manage to call someone else a "cult" member and blather about "miracles, like exceeding the capabilities of man made software" in the same post -- and that's just one post of several -- I form the impression that you are indifferent to facts.

Now, if you're prepared to demonstrate that SDuderstadt belongs to a cult or that Heikkila was right about the software, then you have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, the only moral equivalence I see is that in both cases, you were caught posting nonsense at other people's expense, and somehow you think you're the one with the grievance.

"Take for instance the speed of the plane. Analysis of the video footage suggests that the plane was travelling at 590 mph when it hit the building. This is not far off the top cruising speed of a 767, but a regular 767 can only achieve such speeds when it is flying at high altitude. At sea level, where the air is much denser and offers far greater resistance, 590 mph is far beyond the capability of a 767. This casts doubt on whether the plane was powered by the Pratt and Whitney engines normally used on 767s and suggests a power plant of a type more usually found on military aircraft."

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/spencer06.htm

BOEING Claims "National Security" On WTC2 Plane, Refuses to Respond to Questions
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/07/292692.shtml


Eduardo Kausel draws our attention to another important point...
"...the above data indicates that the terrorists flew towards the WTC close to the ground at nearly the full cruising speed of the planes, which is about 900 km/h (560 mph) at a normal altitude of 10km (33,000 feet). It is surprising that the inexperienced pilots that the terrorist were could still steer the planes at those speeds and hit their target head on. Also, considering that the air at low altitudes is much denser than that at normal cruising height, the pilots greatly exceeded Vne ("Velocity Never Exceed") and thereby risked disintegration of the aircraft by air friction."


I spoke to a former Boeing 767-200 Captain about the aerodynamic limitations of the Boeing 767-200 aircraft and he stated that it would be unwise to exceed an indicated airspeed of 400 knots (460 mph at sea level) at any altitude.

As mentioned before, the airspeed of 400 knots at sea level is well outside the maximum operating speed of the Boeing 767-200 and therefore the pilots would run the risk of either total structural failure or localised structural failures, namely wing fairings breaking off, engine cowlings breaking off, control surfaces breaking off or becoming inoperative and handling difficulties. None of these structural failures and handling issues would be of any benefit to the crew, so why did the alleged hijackers chose to operate their usurped aircraft at such a dangerously high airspeed such that it could have prematurely terminated their mission through complete structural failure, or made it unnecessarily difficult or even impossible to execute through partial structural failure and aircraft handling difficulties?"


http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/speed/

Not that this is the proper thread for this discussion.

if you're about to plow a plane into a building, do you honestly believe a hijacker worries about operating the plane "safely"?

wouldn't break up and have the wings fall off before he got it to the target. Otherwise he's taking a chance of blowing up a corn field. Not much point in that.

do you honestly believe the hijackers flew the planes at their final speed the entire time? Does anything ever penetrate with you?

Duh.

If the planes were flying those speeds at 33,000 feet, no problem. So do we know from lift off until the end what their altitudes/speeds were? Is that dealt with in any official report? Are you claiming to know those stats?

And hell, I don't know if they even flew over any cornfields, nor does it matter. The point was, whoever was flying the planes had targets selected and having the planes break up and crash to the ground due to high speed and air friction before reaching those targets would have been pointless.

you are betraying your absolute ignorance on this subject yet once more. Why don't you bother to check out facts before you make stupid claims or ask dumb questions?

Do you know what a FDR is? Did you research the flight information from the FAA for the flights in which the FDR was recovered? No, of course you didn't.

Won't you?

To date, none of the contents of any of the FDRs from the two jetliners that hit the Twin Towers have been made public.

LOL.

your reading comprehension really sucks. Here are my exact words. I'll underline the money shot so it doesn't go roght over your head, as it usually does, dude.



You seem determined to remain uninformed/misinformed. Since it seems no one really takes you seriously, it seems safe to me to let you continue to luxuriate in your abject ignorance of the events of that day.

So, lets go on what we have. The last known altitude reported for AA77 was 7000 feet. And travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes. Thats 6.6 miles per minute or 396 knots (Update: FDR data shows 325 knots average airspeed. 9/11 Commission Report is inaccurate). Then the aircraft began a 330 degree spiraling dive, leveling at 2200 feet to accelerate to the Pentagon while continuing descent. He started the maneuver at 7000 feet, 396 knots, dove almost 5000 feet within a 330 degree turn and covered 5 miles in about 3 minutes. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the final impact speed was 530 mph. Update: FDR is now available and the 9/11 report is inaccurate in terms of impact speed.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

The only plane whose cockpit voice recorder was supposedly recovered and successfully read was Flight 93. The recorders on the other three jets were deemed unrecovered or too damaged to read. The FBI refused to release an audio record or transcript of Flight 93's voice recorder with the excuse: "we do not believe that the horror captured on the cockpit voice recording will console them in any way." 1 Then, in April of 2006, a transcript of Flight 93's CVR was published in conjunction with the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/voicedata.html

I’m convinced now.

http://74.6.117.48/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=911+FLIGHT+DATA+RECORDERS+93+Moussaoui+trial&fr=yfp-t-701&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=911+FLIGHT+DATA+RECORDERS+93+Moussaoui+trial&d=4906532115514800&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=4dd0f7ad,c79aedd6&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=tAEd4HNvyBuZxm0gPTd1yQ-

:sarcasm:

About what?
As usual, your posts make no sense.

you're convinced, dude.

I hope you aren't asking me to explain what you meant by "man made software." As for why you're changing the subject, I figure that speaks for itself.

can we have the direct quote? I do not recall ever using that phrase.

From my post #65, which you are responding to:

"the pilots greatly exceeded Vne ("Velocity Never Exceed") and thereby risked disintegration of the aircraft by air friction."

What's Vne?

"Velocity Never Exceed. This is the maximum speed that a given airplane can go. Going faster than Vne can result in “structural damage.” Please be aware that "structural damage" is very conservative language for "ripping your wings off so you plunge to a horrible death."

http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showuser=21834&tab=aboutme

Bring Digital Audio Technology to Your Aircraft
With the flying season just around the corner, owners of retractable-gear aircraft can add an extra margin of safety by installing a P2 Audio Advisory System. Just like the new jets, the system combines audio and visual advisories for landing gear position, Vne overspeed, stall warning, and output for a Hobbs meter. Digital voice technology actually speaks to the pilot via headset and/or speaker: "GEAR IS DOWN FOR LANDING"; "OVERSPEED"; "CHECK GEAR"; and "STALL." Regularly priced at $1,795, these systems are now available for $1,295. Learn more online.

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/598-full.html

So yeah, strangely enough, whether its hardware or software, and whether its in a jumbo jet or a puddle jumper, its man made (gasp).

The following is from one of your posts, right?


OnTheOtherHand provided a direct quote of that post in reply #63. I'm not sure why a request for a direct quote is even needed after it had already been posted.
 

so are you claiming there is not a dne capability installed on passenger planes of every kind? Are you saying the dne is not man made? Or are you just trying to deflect, deny and dismiss unfortunate facts?

you are trying to deflect by lying about your own quotes and then changing the topic.
you really should try learning the basic facts of what happened that day.
curious why no one takes you seriously?

Repeat:

This is the maximum speed that a given airplane can go. Going faster than Vne can result in “structural damage.” Please be aware that "structural damage" is very conservative language for "ripping your wings off so you plunge to a horrible death."

Facts? Have you posted any? Links to prove the OTC? Have you posted any?

Deny, deflect, dismiss.

I will let you figure out the key word in that sentence

But of course some people prefer to refer to dead people as "negative patient outcome" and I'll have to admit that one has always floored me.

"the wings rip off", dude? Do you have any idea how a plane is constructed?

(repeat from earlier link) .... 590 mph is far beyond the capability of a 767. This casts doubt on whether the plane was powered by the Pratt and Whitney engines normally used on 767s and suggests a power plant of a type more usually found on military aircraft."

you have no idea what you are talking about.
when called on your silly assertions, you change the subject.

(repeat from earlier link) .... 590 mph is far beyond the capability of a 767. This casts doubt on whether the plane was powered by the Pratt and Whitney engines normally used on 767s and suggests a power plant of a type more usually found on military aircraft."

okay, try to follow this...
590 mph is NOT far beyond the capability of a 767. It IS beyond the suggested safe top-speed.
Why is this, you might ask since you don't seem to understand anything? Let me tell you.
Because a 767 is full of human beings whose lives pilots are responsible for.
Therefore, a airline and a pilot need to know that there is a certain speed that they should not exceed unless there is an emergency.
I hate to ask you a question since you don't seem to understand anything, but do you think the hijackers were worried about their or the passengers' safety?
Did you know a 767 can do a loop da loop? Do you know why you never hear of one doing that?
Did you know a 767 can do a barrel roll? Do you know why you never hear of one doing that?
Seriously, you are not serious about any of this, are you?

is that you contact the website that's putting out such "false" information and put that argument to them directly. Can't have people lying on the internet, now can we?

I'm on this one.
You posted it, didn't you?

just going around spreading joy from one place to another. I can't help it if some people want to be sour pusses. There are many other places on DU to hang out where they won't be subjected to it.

you are really helping your cause.

guess you know that you have no idea what you are posting about, huh?

Answer: some goofy CT website.

"thinking", is that it's hard to find test pilots to fly planes to find out at exactly at what speed they fall apart.

Great. A non-denial denial on an easily verifiable fact about your own posts.

Maybe you can think of a way to blame that on your hatred of PDFs? :shrug:

But "man made software" wasn't the biggest problem with that post, just the last one.

The Oracle...

get more coverage than a few lines on Reuters. The media goes nuts over the real whackos. Do you have any idea why that is? I'm stumped.

those three hundred New Yorkers went to city hall bearing 80,000 names on a petition.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

besides a shrill, out of tune, screech?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Check out any five of the most used information sources; count criticisms of the government, and then count criticisms of the 9/11 truth movement. No contest.

Or, if that's too "M$M" for you, hang out in a local diner and count the same things.

While this observation may not feed the egos of truth movement adherents, it is quite appropriate that the government is scrutinized much more closely than the 9/11 truth movement. Someone like Richard Gage basically owes nothing to us. Within very broad limits, he can say whatever he wants, whether or not it's true, whether or not he even believes it, with carte blanche. But the government is supposed to be accountable to citizens, and there can be no accountability without scrutiny. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Any implication that "the government" isn't "held to the same scrutiny as the 9/11 truth movement" perhaps stems from a misperception, an inapposite use of the passive voice, or (as I suspect) both.

and what they don't...

dude?

you're getting some lame reporting on it these days.

is hardly "pro-drug war". How about a more specific example? Or, are you just talking through your hat?

I would love to see this "mostly" "hardly pro drug war" reporting. Do you mean the occasional debate once in awhile about medical marijuana?

And that one guy Olive North.... Yeah him. He consistently denied the Iran/Contra involved drugs, and isn't it funny he ended up hosting a show on a news station?

I haven't got the foggiest notion wtf you're babbling about.