Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "BBC" channel.

Yes, and way too incompetent to have done 911 deliberately.
2
The tapes were played 20 years ago for the families. So unless you are accusing the families of lying, we have good reason to believe they exist.
2
I think there's a case for invading Iraq, given its use of WMD on its on people. But not really on the grounds of 9/11, since there has been no convincing evidence Iraq was behind 9/11. In addition, at least 100K deaths, and more likely many 100s of K deaths resulted. Does that make the US look like a responsible power, or one that continues to confirm to the repeated criticisms of a nation playing God, and shrugging its shoulders at the deaths it causes? I have only thought about these issues fleetingly, but it causes me increasing discomfort, even if I feel much safer now than before 9/11.
2
Well compared to what came later from the GOP, you have a point.
1
Unlikely.
1
Problem is, the flight 93 no-plane theory is completely self-refuting by the fact that it doesn't make an iota of sense. The whole point of 911 was for the planes to HIT their targets, not crash into the middle of nowhere. Therefore, F93 only makes sense as a real terrorists attack gone wrong. No truther claim has been more bizarrely schizophrenic than this one.
1
Well, more likely that they would hide it to keep the hero story part of the official history. The problem though is, there's precious little evidence it was shot down.
1
Yes - - lame and brainless.
1
There's nothing very questionable about the basics.
1
He could have shown greater leadership instead of continuing to read "My Pet Goat" for another 7 minutes. I think that speaks to his massive incompetence as a leader.
1
@Eclipse-lw4vf No, I am referring to the fact that after the SECOND plane hit, he kept reading for several minutes.
1
You win today's prize for truther impersonation!
1
No immediate panic because he was too dumb to know how to act. Seriously, any real script would have tried to make the president look on top of things. Not reading "My Pet Goat" and looking paralyzed. That's the dumbest script I've ever heard.
1
I commend you for doing research, but your conclusions don't add up. Much has been written about the existing scar. But a look at satellite photo pre-9/11 reveals the scar is oriented in a different direction. "From the time flight 93 started til the time it crashed the cockpit door NEVER opened!" C 'mon, you should know that an FDR doesn't record the position of a cockpit door. And the CVR may not pick up the noise of a door opening. The government also never claimed the cockpit door opened. So this is a straw man. And hundreds of claims by the truth mvt are also plane wrong. If you limit your research to truth sites, there's a good chance they will succeed in brainwashing you. I bet, for example, you believe the lie that cell phones couldn't work on flight 93. Am I right?
1
Hello, I don't have an ironclad explanation. But I have read enough to know there is also no ironclad smoking gun either. I assume you are referring to the 7A/F/J versions of the JT9D engine. To me this is a classic example of truthers setting into absolute stone a theoretical limitation. Like the idea that the 9/11 planes exceeded their design limits. The design limit has been broken on a number of occasions, and not just on 9/11. For example, Boeing frequently tests their wings to destruction, and they have occasionally survived well beyond their design limit. In this case we have a statement from Boeing itself: "Each 767 is powered by two high-bypass-ratio turbofan engines, which are interchangeable with 747 engines with only minor modifications." Now, if you want to go the next step, we could resolve this with a simple call a la whatever that guy's name was, Jeff? Because without such a confirmation that the two variants are not interchangeable between the two aircraft types, the argument holds no real power. I'm happy to make the call to Boeing if you want. Or maybe you want to make it. Let me know. This is how I like to do "truth." Hands on. What do you say?
1
@VS-rd9vd So, how am I doing so far?
1
@Cookie-hg4xb Hello, Well I am finding claims that make no sense at all. Maybe you can help me with this: For example, at 33:55 there's a dark blue slide where she states that the engines had to have gauged the ground because "the top of the fuselage was no more than 20 feet above the ground" and "the huge engines extend 9 feet beneath the bottom and the wings." But this doesn't add up to the official 757 dimensions. As it happens, the 757-200 series fuselage is a full 20 feet above the ground when its landing gear is extended. This means it hit the building at precisely the height it would normally be when on the ground. Which means the engines would clear the ground by 29 inches, their official ground clearance. The right engine actually smashed into a generator a split second before impact. See 911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77 at 4:30.
1
@Cookie-hg4xb Well I've done quite a bit of research over the years, mainly because, and I'm revealing my debunker bias for the purposes of being as fair as possible, from day one I felt that the truth mvt is all up the wrong track. It was my lifelong interest in air safety and the causes of air crashes that made my blood boil when suddenly out of the woodwork came legions of rookie air crash experts who had no idea what they were talking about. Enter 911pilotsfor truth, claimed to be representative of pilot opinion, and run by that idiot fraud Rob Balsamo (examlples include his bogus Flight 77 FRD analysis, and his false claims about Egyptair F990). They and others say the so-called Hanjour maneuver was impossible. And others, such as Niles Harrit, chimed in as well. But have you ever looked at the other side of the aisle? I was a limo driver for many years at Logan airport, and I took up the subject with various pilots as they were waiting for their hotel vans. One Airtran pilot stated it was impossible. But three others vehemently disagreed. One United pilot told me that while it involved some good luck, there was nothing impossible about it. If anything the consensus supported the "Hanjour maneuver." It may well be that today's younger pilot generation hasn't given the matter much thought. Nevertheelss doing your own research, I have found, is the best way to see why 911 truth doesn't add up. Go talk to commercial pilots yourself. Even today, I doubt very highly there is remotely a consensus that this maneuvering was impossible. But if you treat 911 truth sites as the Gospel, and never look at the many refutations of their arguments, it's understandable why many people become reliant on the Honneger/Griffin/Steve Jones worldview, and block out everything else. Not saying you necessarily. But a great many indeed.
1
@Cookie-hg4xb "so hitting a light pole (let alone five) would have caused the plane's wings to erupt in a fireball" You are using personal intuition here. Would be wise to run that point by a physics / crash expert however, as wings of planes have hit things before without exploding. In essence you are also saying that five light poles would cause a 100 ton airliner to come to a screeching halt in under 1.5 seconds, because that is the distance between the building and the farthest pole. That's so far out of the ball park to be safely discarded. Just ask anyone on an air safety forum, or to a crash expert. There is no way that happened. And it did crash soon after: under 2 seconds later !! And how does Honneger account for the poles? Is she saying they were each individually bombed? That makes even less sense than a 757. If I may, the vast majority of serious truthers accept that a real airliner hit the Pentagon. Please Google: Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate By John D. Wyndham
1
@Cookie-hg4xb That's totally fine by me. Let us both give ourselves a small pat on the back (well at least for you) for a relatively civil exchange.
1
No no no no. If he knew in advance, he would not have continued reading "My Pet Goat," If anything he would have responded a little too quickly and decisively to look presidential, and on top of things. This is the lamest script for an alleged false flag, another failure of the imagination of drive by truthers who spin things out of thin air on a regular basis. No wonder the truth mvt is effectively dead.
1