Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

One common trait of the contributors to TGZFH (or at least Healy, White, Fetzer and Costella) is their complete lack of critical thinking skills.

Len Colby wrote:

If you accept Jack's suggestion that the 757 parts were planted, explain how that could have been done without anybody noticing.

perhaps the same way no one noticed a plane hitting the pentagon?

??????????

Who said that "no one noticed a plane hitting the pentagon?" Some of the CT nuts are saying that people imagined a plane when the building was hit by a missile. Now if you're so clever Dave tell us how large chunks of fuselage could have been planted in broad daylight on an open lawn without anyone noticing.

Also this explanation is not compatible with this rationalization of eyewitness testimony of a passenger jet hitting the Pentagon.

so that we on the CT side of the JFK murder understand: eye witness testimony regarding terrorist attack is acceptable, whereas eye witness testimony regarding the murder of a sitting US president [JFK assassination] is questioned? That about sum it up?

1) I guess since since you have nothing else you still try to classify the debate between "alterationist" and "non-alterationists" as one between LN's and conspiracists when you know that isn't the case, most JFK researchers on both sides of the debate reject your Zapruder film lunacy which is why Fetzer is persona non grata at most JFK events in the US

2) What witnesses are you talking about?

3) Ron was proposing mutually exclusive theories:

i) An AA passenger jet flew very close to the Pentagon and was seen by many witnesses but did not hit the building and flew off without anybody noticing. Right behind the plane was the missile that actually hit the Pentagon.

ii) The plotters hit the Pentagon with a missile instead of a passenger jet because the missile is much easier to control than a 757. Using the missile spared them the bother of having to remote control 757.

Determing Lone Neuter logic is daunting to say the least.

Thinking logically is a daunting task for alterationists!

Who said I'm a "lone nutter"? The "non-alterationists are LN's" strawman got old ages ago. And in case you haven't noticed Steve Turner and Bill Kelly don't seem to be buying this 'missile hit the Pentagon' crap either.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len,

Regarding the questions directed to me: Why do you keep ask questions endlessly when the only way to ever answer them is to HAVE AN INVESTIGATION? And please don't mention the 9/11 Whitewash Commission, whose report, among other things, DOESN'T EVEN MENTION THE COLLAPSE OF WTC7. (Oh yeah, Zelikow and crew are saying, a third building collapsed that day, without even being hit by a plane, but SO WHAT?) That's not to mention the lie that the cores of the towers were empty shafts (there were no 47 steel core columns in each). And remember Deep Throat's sound advice "Follow the money" in cracking the Watergate case? Well, Zelikow and crew say, "To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance." No, I didn't make that up, it's on page 172, you can read it for yourself.

You either see through the government and its official story of 9/11 or you don't. It's no different in that respect than the JFK assassination, the main questions being who really did it and why was it covered up. Arguing about lone nuts, whether one or 19 (plus one in a cave), is a waste of time when no minds are going to be changed no matter what.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
[

2)

Who said I'm a "lone nutter"? The "non-alterationists are LN's" strawman got old ages ago. And in case you haven't noticed Steve Turner and Bill Kelly don't seem to be buying this 'missile hit the Pentagon' crap either.

Hey Len, leave me out of this particular fight B) Just to reiterate, I have never believed that the PHYSICAL evidence of 911 differed in any substantial way from the official line. My research (such as it is) was concerned with Government foreknowledge of this terrible event, and, as I openly admitted in another thread, I have garnered no particular body of evidence in this regard to present to the Forum. Rest assured if ever said evidence is substatiated you will be the first to know.....Steve.

Edited by Stephen Turner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len,

Regarding the questions directed to me: Why do you keep ask questions endlessly when the only way to ever answer them is to HAVE AN INVESTIGATION?

Don't take it personally Ron it's just that you are one of the few people on this forum pushing "alternative 9/11 CTs" on this forum.

And please don't mention the 9/11 Whitewash Commission,

Though the commission report wasn't perfect there is little evidence that it was a 'whitewash'.or that its major findings were wrong

whose report, among other things, DOESN'T EVEN MENTION THE COLLAPSE OF WTC7 (Oh yeah, Zelikow and crew are saying, a third building collapsed that day, without even being hit by a plane, but SO WHAT?)

Irrelevant the primary focus of the report was to determine how the attacks were carried out and to identify the failing of US intelligence etc. Not to determine what happened to the building destroyed of dammaged as a result of the attacks. 7 got less attention because it wasn't an iconic landmark and no one died in its collapse. NIST however has released its preliminary report on the 7 WTC collapse.

That's not to mention the lie that the cores of the towers were empty shafts (there were no 47 steel core columns in each).

Irrelevant for the reasons mentioned above the comission report wasn't a technical study of why the buildings collapsed the core columns are discussed in both the ASCE (Am. Soc. of Civil Engineers) and NIST reports as well as in the numerous scientific articles and papers published about the collapses. The description of the core as a hollow tube was a simplified explaination.

And remember Deep Throat's sound advice "Follow the money" in cracking the Watergate case? Well, Zelikow and crew say, "To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance." No, I didn't make that up, it's on page 172, you can read it for yourself.

he was right OBL is a multi-millionaire and Al-Qeada has lots of assetts. It's believed IIRC the cost of the operation was under $ 1 million not a lot of money by international banking standards. There is an informal Muslim money transfer system (Hawalas) which is almost impossible to trace.

You either see through the government and its official story of 9/11 or you don't. It's no different in that respect than the JFK assassination, the main questions being who really did it and why was it covered up. Arguing about lone nuts, whether one or 19 (plus one in a cave), is a waste of time when no minds are going to be changed no matter what.

One shouldn't believe everything the government tells them, esp. when someone like Bush is president, but on the other hand one should believe every cockamamie CT out there. It's interesting that you metion the Kennedy assassination because I participate in two JFK forums (this and another) and on both it's the same there are very few takers for the "inside job" theory.

I have researched 9/11 and it's obvious that the Bush administration was negligent and tried to cover that up and that it used the attacks as a pretext for its right wing agenda. The health risks near ground zero were also covered up. Other than that their is very little merit in the points raised by the "9-11 truth movement"

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't take it personally Ron it's just that you are one of the few people on this forum pushing "alternative 9/11 CTs" on this forum.

Take what personally? The fact that I'm not one of the sheep?

I suppose I could say I'm proud, though I don't think it takes that much intelligence to wise up to the kind of government the U.S. has. I confess it took me about 40 years to do it. That's how long it took me to deprogram myself from the bunk I was taught while growing up and in high-school civics class. At this point in life, and particularly after 9/11, I have no illusions left, except of course in the minds of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Griffin’s error # 1

The towers, however, were designed to withstand the impact of airliners about the same size as Boeing 767s. Hyman Brown, the construction manager of the Twin Towers, said: “They were over-designed to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes, . . . bombings and an airplane hitting [them]” (Bollyn, 2001).”

I don’t know was an intentional distortion or not but it is highly misleading. I wrote this for another forum.

The towers were DESIGNED to withstand single 707 impacts but the

Titanic was designed to be unsinkable and that terminal at DeGaulle

International Airport was not designed to spontaneously collapse,

this winter several buildings in Europe collapsed due to the weight

of accumulated snow which they presumably had been designed to

withstand.

The impact the towers were designed to survive were very different

from the ones they suffered and they failed to take the plane's fuel

load and resulting fire into account. Leslie Robertson, lead

engineer for the WTC said, "…we were looking at an aircraft not

unlike the Mitchell bomber that ran into the Empire State Building.

We were looking at an aircraft that was lost in the fog, trying to

land. It was a low-flying, slow-flying 707, which was the largest

aircraft of its time...What we didn't look at is what happens to all

that fuel. And perhaps we could be faulted for that, for not doing

so. But for whatever reason we didn't look at that question of what

would happen to the fuel. "

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/filmmore/pt.html

According to the introduction to the ASCE report which cites Port

Authority documents they calculated a plane flying at 180 mph (291 kph). They based their calculations on a 707 weighing 263,000 lbs (119,292 kilos)

That make sense, a database put out by a subsidiary of Unysis indicates the approach speeds for 707's is 132 - 145 KCAS ( 153 - 168 mph) depending on model.

[ http://www.r2ainc.com/CAFT/pdfs/Customers%20Tbl2.PDF ] {KCAS = nautical miles per hour. 1 nautical mile = 1.16 statue miles}. A 737 pilot's

manual advises them to use approach speeds of 135 – 145 KAIS (or

157 – 168 mph) and advises there is a 250 KAIS (290 mph) speed limit

below 10,000 feet (the top of the towers was 1368 feet)

http://www.cadets.net/pac/aircad/trg/CASC/ac_books.pdf pgs 41 - 42

The planes hit the towers at about 430* and 500 mph [ http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf ], 2.4X and 2.8X

faster and weighed 274,000 lbs (124,282 kilos) [ http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3737/is_200209/ai_n9134665 ] and thus with about 6X and 8X more kinetic energy than what the

towers were designed to withstand. (KE = mass x velocity squared).

*According to other sources flight 11 hit at 470 not 430 mph see the findarticle link above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a slight clarification there; KCAS is Knots Calibrated Air Speed. It's normally used for higher speeds / altitudes. KIAS is Knots Indicated Air Speed. That's the speed that will be displayed to the pilot 'uncorrected' and is normally used at lower speeds (such as approach and landing). There is also KTAS which is Knots True Air Speed; as the name suggests it is the true speed you are flying through the air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

The more I learn of the nature, and personality of M Atta, the more he fits the bill as a man who could cold-bloodedly fly an airliner into the Towers, yet, strangely not for the reasons given. consider, we are told that Atta was a Muslem fanatic who believed Allah would reward him for his actions, and yet.

1, Atta has an American (infidel) girlfriend.

2, He, with several of the other suicide pilots regularly visit stripjoints, where they are seen stuffing Dollar bills into stocking tops.

3, He, and his buddies drink alcohol, heavily, and on a regular basis.

4, Nobody ever observes Atta, or any of the others carying out their religous obligation of praying to Mecca.

Atta was undoubtedly a cold blooded psychopath, whether he was a Muslem fanatic is, I submit, open to question. Comments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

His American girlfriend told a story that sheds some light on just what kind of a man Atta was.

She broke up with him in a very public, and humiliating way, Atta told her "You will be very sorry for what you have done" A few days later, returning to the appt she had shared with Atta she found it had been broken into, very little damage had been done but a litter of kittens she was looking after had been mutilated, and their body parts strewn around the room. She was in no doubt that Atta had done this..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen,

great points in both posts. Obviously, for operatives it helps if they're psychopathic but above all they should feel that they themselves are above the law and even above alleged devotion to Allah and basic religious observances. So it's a great and important point to note the amorality and psychopathic nature against so-called "Muslim fanaticism," "Islamists, Islamic extremists, etc. The latter being IMO a "political poise" to influence "the masses."

Thanks and what are you reading on this detail?

Dan

He's probably getting his information from Daniel Hopsicker's research (which can be found in his book "Welcome to Terrorland"). If not, its from a source that's ultimately derived from Hopsicker. I've found most of what I've read from him to be fascinating.

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In some ways Hopsicker reminds me of a modern day Penn Jones or Mark Lane. He calls Venice, Florida, home of Huffman Aviation, the crime scene that "was not destroyed." He got to witnesses and interviewed them while some of them were still talking. The fascinating video of Atta's girlfriend where she describes how Atta and his friends would do massive amounts of cocaine that they obtained at Huffman Aviation rings true. (See link below - Video #1)

Hopsicker goes on to write:

The almost-complete post-9/11 embargo on sensitive information illustrates the lengths authorities have gone to suppress, sanitize, and remove from the historical record crucial evidence about what really happened inimical to the 'official story.'

They especially don't want nosy reporters uncovering and reporting on this amazing fact: During the same month that Atta and his bodyguard Marwan Al-Shehhi began flying lessons at Huffman Aviation, (July, 2000) flight school owner Wally Hilliard's Lear jet was seized on the runway of Orlando Executive Airport by DEA agents who found 43-pounds of heroin onboard.

This is not "conspiracy theory."

This is conspiracy fact. A story in the August 2, 2000 Orlando Sentinel, for example, labeled the bust "the biggest drug seizure in central Florida history." 43 pounds of heroin is known in the drug trade as "heavy weight."

http://www.madcowprod.com/02212006.html

As an aside, there is an interesting article written by John Hooper for the Observer less than two weeks after 9/11. Hooper writes in part:

In many respects, though, he (Atta) led not one life, but two. He repeatedly switched names, nationalities and personalities. If in Egypt, and later in the US, he was Mohamed Atta, then at the Technical University of Harburg, he was Mohamed el-Amir. For the university authorities, he was an Egyptian, yet for his landlord, as for the US authorities, he was from the United Arab Emirates. And while it is not hard to see Atta, whose face gazes out from the passport photograph released by the FBI, as that of the mass murderer of Manhattan, el-Amir was a shy, considerate man who endeared himself to Western acquaintances.

Such indeed was the gulf between the two that some people, notably his father, insisted last week that Mohamed Atta's identity must have been stolen by the hijackers' leader.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/waronterror...,556630,00.html

Reading the 9/11 Commission Report about Atta and the disquieting resemblances to the inadequacies of the Warren Report is like "deja vu all over again."

The Report has no qualms in identifying Atta as the "tactical leader of the 9/11 plot" yet the Report acknowledges that "the speed with which Atta (and others) became "core members of the 9/11 plot--with Atta designated as its operational leader--is remarkable."

The Report goes on to state: "Bin Laden and Atef plainly judged that Atta was best suited to be the tactical commander of the operation. Such a quick and critical judgment invites speculation about whether they had already taken Atta's measure at some earlier meeting." Yeah, right. The whole account of Atta's recruitment takes scarcely a page and is documented by uncorroborated hearsay.

Just as the members of the President's Commission had trouble ascribing a motive to Lee Oswald, the 9/11 Commission was unable to assign a motive to Atta, other than an account of his background and increasingly fanatical beliefs that took up all of one page.

The report stated: "In his interactions with other students, Atta voiced virulently anti-Semitic and anti-American opinions, ranging from condemnations of what he described as a global Jewish movement centered in New York City that supposedly controlled the financial world and the media, to polemics against governments of the Arab world." So what? I've read similar views on this forum.

The Report goes on to state that to Atta, "Saddam Hussein was an American stooge set up to give Washington an excuse to intervene in the middle east." I wonder where Atta got that crazy idea.

Unlike the Warren Report that dwelled incessantly on Lee Oswald's childhood and background, The 9/11 Commission was incredibly succinct in their examination of Atta. Just going to the index, and reading every single word they write about the man they call the tactical leader of the plot takes no more than twenty or thirty minutes at the most. Their basis for most information comes from "friends" or "acquaintances" of Atta's

It's really a damn shame what a shoddy job they did. History will not judge 9/11 Commission kindly, just as it has not the Warren Report.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
Stephen,

great points in both posts. Obviously, for operatives it helps if they're psychopathic but above all they should feel that they themselves are above the law and even above alleged devotion to Allah and basic religious observances. So it's a great and important point to note the amorality and psychopathic nature against so-called "Muslim fanaticism," "Islamists, Islamic extremists, etc. The latter being IMO a "political poise" to influence "the masses."

Thanks and what are you reading on this detail?

Dan

He's probably getting his information from Daniel Hopsicker's research (which can be found in his book "Welcome to Terrorland"). If not, its from a source that's ultimately derived from Hopsicker. I've found most of what I've read from him to be fascinating.

Yep, much of my research on Atta and the others has been via the redoubtable Mr Hopsicker.

It strikes me that their are two ways to look at this, first the official version, these people were brainwashed Islamofacists, highly trained, amoral assassins with a great, and abiding hatred for the West, especially the US, and all it stands for. In return for commiting Jihad they were promised an eternity in Paradise, with 50 virgins awaiting their arival, so lets consider what depth of blind faith is needed to facilitate this atrocity, no room for doubt can exist in the martyr's mind, he is a true disiple of Alah, the one true God, in mind, body and Soul. The depth of contempt, and hatred that he feels for his enemies is total, none must be spared.A psycological profile of this type of individual would reveal a driven, fixated, deeply fanatical personality, given to morbid, supersticious thinking. Does this sound like the womanizing, coke snifing, alcohol abusing, kitten mutilating, foul mouthed, sharp suited, lap dance loving Atta? Whats wrong with this picture?

So perhaps we need to consider a second possibility, could it be, as Daniel suggested a political, rather than a religious acy? with radical Islam simply providing window dressing for the faithfull? and it can certainly be difficult to seperate the two in the middle eastern caldron, where Religion is often the Father of politics, there is however a problem with this scenario. Lets use the IRA's mainland bombing campaign in Britain as a template for politically inspired terrorism, its aim was to force the removal of British troops from Northern Ireland, and the Provisional IRA considered themselves to be at war with the institutions of the British State, The bombing campaign reflected this mindset, civilians were not considered legitimate targets ( although many were killed) Military, and government biuldings, soldiers, policemen and Politicians were targeted, warnings, using agreed codewords were almost always given, the main aim was to cause as much disruption to "normal" life as possible, Murder was simply seen as a byproduct of this, and most tellingly, not one suicide bomber in over 30 years of atrocities, after all you can ask a soldier to risk his life, but not knowingly to give it up.

So were does this leave us? damned if I know...any further thoughts Gentlemen? Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like so many questions about 9/11, there are questions about Atta that cannot be answered without a real investigation.

One would think that a real investigation would include interrogation of General Mahmood Ahmad, the head of Pakistani intelligence (ISI) from 1999 until he was fired in October 2001. According to information reported in the Times of India (10/9/01), Agence France-Presse (10/10/01), and the Wall Street Journal (10/10/01), the general was sacked after the FBI determined with the help of Indian intelligence that Al Qaeda operative Saeed Sheikh (aka Ahmad Umar Sheikh) had wired $100,000 to hijacker Mohamed Atta upon General Mahmood’s instruction.

John S. Pistole, deputy assistant director of the FBI’s counterrorism division, testified to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in July 2003 that investigators had "traced the origin of the funding of 9/11 back to financial accounts in Pakistan, where high-ranking and well-known al-Qaida operatives played a major role in moving the money forward, eventually into the hands of the hijackers located in the U.S." (AP 7/31/03). The money flowed through the Pakistani accounts from associates in Germany and the United Arab Emirates who reported to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who managed much of the 9/11 planning from Pakistan. But Pistole made no mention of the information linking the ISI’s General Mahmood to the transfer of $100,000 of those funds via Pakistan to Atta.

Independent journalist Chaim Kupferberg has suggested that the Bush administration intended to use the evidence that Saeed Sheikh had wired $100,000 to Atta as proof that Al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks, until the story broke that Saeed Sheikh had done so by instruction of the head of Pakistan’s ISI, which has long had close ties with the CIA ("Pakistani ISI and 9/11," Center for Cooperative Research website). (On the morning of 9/11, General Mahmood was in Washington DC, meeting at the time the attacks began with U.S. intelligence committee heads Porter Goss and Bob Graham. The main purpose of his presence in Washington from September 4 to 13 was obstensibly to visit with CIA director George Tenet, who had visited Pakistan in May. Mahmood also reportedly met with White House and Pentagon officials on 9/10, but when asked in a May 2002 press conference by an accredited Indian journalist - what U.S. journalist would dare ask? - about the ISI chief wiring money to the hijackers and meeting with administration officials in September 2001, WH official Condoleezza Rice curtly replied, "I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me." She then went quickly to the next questioner.) ("Pakistani ISI and 9/11.")

This all adds to the pack of lies and omissions found in the 9/11 Commission Report. Ignoring the Senate testimony of the FBI’s John Pistole that the funding for 9/11 came from financial accounts in Pakistan, the Report states, "To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance" (p. 172).

We are thus supposed to believe that Deep Throat’s advice "Follow the money" might have worked well in breaking the Watergate case, but it doesn’t really matter how Mohammed Atta got his money. Especially if following it would lead to General Mahmood, at whatever Pakistani estate he is enjoying his retirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting to note that Atta’s own father who initially insisted that his son was still alive after 9-11 and had been set up later basically admitted that Atta was involved.

“El-Amir said the attacks in the United States and the July 7 attacks in London were the beginning of what would be a 50-year religious war, in which there would be many more fighters like his son.

[…]

Cursing in Arabic, el-Amir also denounced Arab leaders and Muslims who condemned the London attacks as being traitors and non-Muslims.

He passionately vowed that he would do anything within his power to encourage more attacks.

When asked if he would allow a CNN crew to videotape another interview with him, el-Amir said he would give his permission -- for a price of $5,000.

That money, he said, would not be kept for himself, but would be donated to someone to carry out another terror attack”

With a dad like that it’s no wonder he became a terrorist

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/19/atta.father.terror/index.html

Even the infamous Carlos the Jackel seems to believe that bin-Ladden was responsible for 9-11.

The jailed terrorist Carlos the Jackal, whose real name is Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, was quoted by London-based pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat as saying: "I'm proud of the path of Sheikh Osama bin Laden." He also said he had followed news of the September 11 attacks "non-stop, from the beginning. I can't describe that wonderful feeling of relief".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/oneyearon/story/0,,790471,00.html

…He said bin Laden followed a trail he credits himself with helping blaze…

…Ramirez said he hopes bin Laden is still alive. He said if the Saudi-born dissident "hasn't gained martyrdom, he most probably will play a decisive role" in the war on imperialism…

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62713,00.html

As to Atta and the others visiting strip clubs and doing coke apparently they were members of a sect called Al Takfir wal Hijra which permitted such behavior to “blend in”.

http://www.911myths.com/html/strip_clubs.html

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,182746,00.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200603u/guantanamo

http://www.cageprisoners.com/download.php?download=394 from a lawyer for Guantanamo detainees

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/interviews/fandy.html

http://www.aijac.org.au/updates/Apr-04/020404.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/12/cp.00.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...