How Many people, at a Minimum, would it take to carry 9/11 Inside job?

I forgot to add that someone who believes the truth is in the 9/11 Commission Report does not have any standing to be calling anyone a "dope".

 

that is the weakest pack of witnesses I have ever seen in my life ... this is why nobody takes you serious Scott ... you cherry pick your witnesses ...

 

and someone that believes in controlled demolition in Manhattan doesn't hold much water ... if the 9/11 Commission is covering anything up, it sure isn't controlled demolition ... that's just preposterous ...

 

So is that an admission that you also believe the 9/11 Commission is truth? Did I mention anything about the 9/11 Commission with respect to controlled demolition? I was strictly talking about the 9/11 Commission and truth. When confronted with facts you don't like, change the subject and pretend it was the subject, eh Shiner?

 

You’ve never made any points. We have videos of the planes hitting the towers. End of discussion.

 

You're right, because it was a United Airlines.

 

So Ms. May’s parents called AA and told them that their daughter reported the hijacking due, not to a phone call they received from her but from channeling her during some sort of out of body experience? Gotcha!

And again, if you were the planners, why would you “allow” the phone calls at all? Just add in that the terrorists collected them or that they didn’t work or the terrorists pilots turned off the phones…etc But by allowing them; you have to A)enlist someone to make the calls B)presumably compensate said individual for the rest of their lives
C)pray that they were convincing enough to fool blood relatives.

Put another way, the phone calls were authentic. Your explanation is garbage.

 

You're playing dumb*. Anyone who watches the videos can see the point being made. The truther position is that planes did indeed hit the towers. Their position is that the planes were subtituted in mid-air and some empty remote-controlled planes hit the towers.

September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M
(1:37:44 time mark)

Start watching the above video at the 1:38:25 time mark.

This is pretty lame. You're seeing what you want to see. Should what they say just be ruled out?


*
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
(excerpt)
---------------------------------
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

 

I’d call you as dumb as a box of hammers if it were not so insulting to the much-smarter box of hammers.
Again, why have phone calls at all and expand the circle of the conspiracy?

 

Put another way, thank you for yet another illustration of your lack of knowledge on the design and limitations of cell phones in 2001. You expertly demonstrate the old adage, ignorance is bliss.

 

Name calling only makes your argument (if you even have one) sound juvenile, especially from someone who claims the truth is in the 9/11 Commission Report when all the evidence proves the opposite.

Wrong question, always avoiding questioning claims by authority when that's exactly who you should be questioning. The official claims are dubious and rightly questionable regardless of speculation about possible reasons.

I. Consensus Points about the Phone Calls on 9/11

http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/

 

Again, Ms. May's parents called AA about their daughter reporting the hijacking....they had to have found out somehow. It's another fact that blows apart your theory. Let me guess, they were in on it too..right?

 

"Dumb as a box of hammers" is being generous in describing the intellect of truthers.

Put another way "Don't ask us questions we can't answer".

Again, if you're the planners, why have phone calls be part of the scenario at all? In fact, while we're at it...if you're the planners and your goal is to drum up support for going into Iraq...why not have the allegedly fake phone calls implicate Iraq?

 

Hey usda_select...

You didn't address this.

 

I have not heard about the May family, daughter or parents. If you want to provide a link to their story I would be happy to examine it.

So I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. As far as the listed passengers go, that is a very confusing part of the story. The bulk of the names listed as passengers are from people who worked for the military or the various defense industry companies.

The passenger list themselves are suspect from the beginning. The first released did not even contain the names of the hijackers. After that error, the lists were quickly corrected.

The flights were very lightly loaded. 81 passengers on AA11, 56 on UA175, 58 on AA77, and only 37 on UA93. Which flight was the May girl on?

 

Unfortunately the above isn't doing you any favors, it's a perfect example of the level of your own intellect.

You can ask whatever questions you like, the style of your posts (see above for example), the category of questions you ask and your avoidance of other questions expose your mentality.

Before one asks why Santa Claus would climb down every chimney and leave gifts for every child every Christmas, one who is reasonably intelligent would first have to ask if the story true or not (i.e. putting the cart before the horse), especially when the evidence contradicts the story or makes the story highly dubious. In the case of the 9/11 Commission Report with regard to the OCT in general, if "The 9/11 Commission Didn’t Believe the Government … So Why Should We?" (the official source of the "hijacker" and "phone calls from planes" stories).

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/911-commissioners-didnt-believe-government.html

 

Over 350 Passengers Canceled Their Reservations or Didn't Show Up for the Hijacked 9/11 Flights

http://911blogger.com/news/2014-08-...servations-or-didnt-show-hijacked-911-flights

 

wow .. the number of conspirators grows larger ...

but thanks for finally staying on topic ...

 

Always trying to change the subject when you don't like the facts, eh Shiner? Read the title of the article again for comprehension, "conspirator" (or any form of the word) is not part the title. Unlike you, the article QUESTIONS the fact/phenomenon that over 350 PASSENGERS opted out of the 9/11 flights, you make **** up for your personal hobby. And unlike you who's obviously here to play games by your own admission, those who care about 9/11 and have minimal intellect want answers to these QUESTIONS (if they are to be had) or at least want to discuss these issues.

That's what I keep asking posters to do but they (including you) always deviate and I then end up commenting on the deviated posts. The answer to the thread title was suggested well over 300 posts ago anyway.

 

She was a flight attendant on AA77. You’re a 9/11 researcher?

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/911victims/renee-a-may/

What I’m saying is this. She called her parents and told them to call AA and report the hijacking. Which they did. Your nonsense about phones not working on the planes is garbage.

But, as I’ve pointed out, truthers occupy a parallel universe of sorts and there is zero chance that most will wise up and realize they’re being played for fools losers like Dylan Avery and the like. So I also ask why the “planners” would have phone calls at all in their scenarios or, if you’re going to fabricate phone calls, why not put some utility into them and have them implicate OBL or Sadddam or whomever you want to attack. Earlier, you lamely attributed the light poles being downed to “theatrics”. Makes you wonder (or at least it would make any honest observer wonder) why the phone calls wouldn’t do the first rule of theater; move the narrative forward.

 

There is nothing you can teach me about history, art, music, sports, current events, etc… So I really am not in the market for favors from the mentally incompetent. Thanks though. Your contributions are, well, you make none.

Quoting blogs as fact is pretty lame; even for truthers.

The government says AA11 hit the North tower. Visual evidence, DNA evidence, phone calls, etc confirm it.
The government says U175 hit the South Tower. Visual evidence, DNA evidence, wreckage confirm it.
The government says AA77 hit the Pentagon. While the visual evidence is suspect, the DNA evidence, wreckage, and numerous eyewitness reports confirm it.
The government says U93 crashed in Shanksville, PA. DNA evidence and the wreckage confirm it.

Investigations after the fact paint an overwhelmingly compelling case for the 19 hijackers the government fingered playing roles in the hijackings.

All of the facts line up neatly behind the government (i.e. 9/11 Commission) report. The irresponsible conjecture about plane swaps, passenger loads and the hilarious 350 cancelled reservations is sheer stupidity which, by the way, is something you probably could teach a class about.

 

... anything at all. Sorry I'm not here to teach you or anyone anything, you misunderstand the intent of my posts, as always.

The "blogs" aren't facts or lame, the contents of many blogs point to facts, many of these come from official government reports. Not for you though.

The government says a lot of things, thanks, I'm fully aware of what the government says. That's what I'm here for, to discuss what the government says.

Yes I know what the so-called official investigations paint, it has nothing to do with the above though.

And all the facts (including the official reports) prove the government is lying about 9/11.

Non sequitur, it doesn't change the fact that all the official government reports are lies.

 

Oh, then you must be here to amuse. It's the only thing you do.

Blogs are opinions. Nothing else.

If so you wouldn't have to have cowardly omitted parts of my post. Stop being a coward and address what is written.

Absolutely nothing offers an inkling of proof.

The Commission says AA11 Hit the north tower. Visual, physical and forensic evidence confirm it. It therefore is factual.
The commission says that U175 hit the south tower. Physical, visual, and forensic evidence confirm it. It therefore is factual.
The Commission says that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Visual, physical, and forensic evidence confirm it. It therefore is factual.
The Commission says that U93 crashed in Shanksville, PA. Physical and forensic evidence confirm it. It therefore is factual.

The only business you are in is making up garbage to support you whacky claims.

 

Same problem as government (the Commission was part of the government since it was commissioned by the US government), the Commission said lots of things, they didn't believe it because they knew and said it was filled with lies so there's no point in accepting anything the Commission says as truth. But it's quite alright with me if you believe it's truth, you are irrelevant. And what the Commission knew and didn't say is also a lie by omission, not to mention what the Commission didn't know. What is relevant are the facts:

"There is approximately 570 cubic feet of textual records. A large percentage of the Commission's records are national security classified files."

https://www.archives.gov/research/9-11

 

I posted some info that's very relevant to the above.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=477904&page=34&p=1067047491#post1067047491
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=477904&page=33&p=1067035861#post1067035861

You can ignore it but the viewers are not ignoring it. You aren't going to make the viewers think it's not there by ignorig it.