|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 13, 2013 10:35:31 GMT -5
I'm shocked this was printed in the Wall Street Journal. Eminent New Honorary Members Join 9/11 Consensus Panel: Italian Judge Ferdinando Imposimato, French Director Mathieu Kassovitz, and Author James W. Douglass NEW YORK, June 8, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Amidst growing doubts about its origins, the tragedy of September 11, 2001, continues to fuel the war on terror. Meanwhile, disturbing evidence long suppressed in the media is surfacing through the 24-member 9/11 Consensus Panel's scientific review of official claims that 19 diminutive Muslim hijackers defeated America's defenses. Incredibly, not one of the 300 Dulles International Airport security cameras --positioned at ticket counters, lounges and boarding gates -- captured images of the alleged hijackers of AA Flight 77. The famous "Let's Roll" telephone call from UA Flight 93 was left open for 15 minutes after the plane allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania. Government accounts about the whereabouts of key Pentagon leaders that morning are contradicted by witness reports that would raise the most cynical of eyebrows. These reports are only outdone by the fact that 12 major air defense exercises -- some traditionally held in April and October -- were all scheduled for the morning of September 11. The Panel is pleased to welcome its new Honorary Members. Mr. Ferdinando Imposimato, Honorary President of the Italian Supreme Court, has presided over terrorism cases, including the kidnapping and assassination of President Aldo Moro and the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II. He has publicly stated that 9/11 was a false-flag operation, recommending that it be tried at the International Criminal Court, which investigates criminal acts of war. Mathieu Kassovitz is an award-winning French director, screenwriter, producer, and actor. He has been internationally acclaimed for major films, and hailed as the heir to Francois Truffaut. Kassovitz has raised questions on French television about the official account of 9/11. James Douglass is an American Christian theologian and peace activist. He is the author of many books, including "JFK and the Unspeakable" -- which Oliver Stone called "the best account I have read of the JFK tragedy and its significance." These notables join other prestigious honorary members, including the late biologist, Lynn Margulis. Also new to the Panel are two reviewing members, Professor Daniele Ganser, a Swiss historian who specializes in covert warfare, and American civil engineer Jonathan Cole, who has 28 years of experience in building, utility and infrastructure design. The 9/11 Consensus Panel @911consensus SOURCE The 9/11 Consensus Panel online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130608-901635.htmlwww.consensus911.org/
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 13, 2013 10:41:05 GMT -5
And yet another article printed in the lamestream media. Surprise, surprise. The 9/11 Phone Calls: Disturbing Irregularities Uncovered in the Calls that Flashed around the WorldNEW YORK, May 16, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- America first learned of the 9/11 hijackings from Solicitor-General Ted Olson, who reported two calls from his wife, well-known CNN commentator Barbara Olson. From American Airlines Flight 77, Barbara Olson fleshed out the drama of diminutive Muslim hijackers using knives and box-cutters to herd dozens of passengers to the rear of the plane. These and other reported calls have now been examined by the 9/11 Consensus Panel of scientists, pilots, professors, attorneys, and journalists. The Panel began its research in 2011 with the Twin Towers and the sudden, stunning collapse of adjacent Building WTC7, a massive 47-storey steel-framed skyscraper. The official conclusion that all 82 support columns failed simultaneously from fire alone has for years raised serious questions about the official account. The 9/11 Consensus Panel now offers four evidence-based Points about the alleged phone calls from the 9/11 flights. The famous "let's roll" drama of the passenger revolt on UA 93 was relayed by passenger Todd Beamer's 13-minute unrecorded seat-back call to GTE telephone supervisor Lisa Jefferson, who reported Beamer as strangely tranquil, declining to speak to his wife. Eerily, Beamer's line remained open for 15 minutes after the crash. Oddly, the Verizon wireless record shows that 19 calls were made from Beamer's cell phone long after the crash of UA 93. Initial media reports and FBI interviews detailed more than a dozen cell phone calls from the planes at high elevation. Yet in 2001, a telephone spokesperson stated that sustained mobile calls were not possible above 10,000 feet. During the 2006 Moussaoui Trial, the FBI (under oath) reduced the number of cell phone calls to two calls made from 5,000 feet, and presented evidence of only one (not two) "unconnected" call from Barbara Olson, lasting "0 seconds." In another twist, two other women reported that Caller-ID showed their husband's cell numbers on their answering machines, which while lasting several minutes, had been made from elevations of 25,000 and 35,000 feet. Finally, although the FBI conducted a massive investigation into the calls, none of the telephone billing, nor any of the cell phone location data stored in standard phone company records has been publicly released. The 9/11 Consensus Panel has developed 32 Points of evidence. SOURCE The 9/11 Consensus Panel www.cnbc.com/id/100743112
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 13, 2013 11:09:33 GMT -5
So what ?
The facts are that planes were hijacked and deliberately crashed. These morons seek to deny the hijackings and distract people with false information.
The sensible thing is to avoid ridiculous conspiracy theories and just focus on what is really happening in Afghanistan without making yourself look silly with your easily disproven lies about controlled demolitions.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 13, 2013 12:40:46 GMT -5
So what ? The facts are that planes were hijacked and deliberately crashed. These morons seek to deny the hijackings and distract people with false information. The sensible thing is to avoid ridiculous conspiracy theories and just focus on what is really happening in Afghanistan without making yourself look silly with your easily disproven lies about controlled demolitions. Regardless of your irrelevant opinions, the point is that the news appeared in 2 mainstream outlets. The findings of the Consensus Panel are fact based and for those who want to understand how it works (as opposed to posting their irrelevant personal opinions that have NOTHING to do with anything), see the following: What is “Best Evidence?” An important distinction in the field of evidence is that between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, or evidence that suggests truth as opposed to evidence that directly proves truth. The “best evidence” related to 9/11 is founded on: The opinions of respected authorities, based on professional experience, descriptive studies, and reports of expert committees. Physical data in the form of photographs, videotapes, court testimony, witness reports, and FOIA releases Direct rather than circumstantial evidence The Practice of Evidence-Based Research We define the practice of evidence-based research as the judicious use of current best evidence in evaluating the issue at hand. This practice means integrating individual professional expertise with the best available documentary and scientific evidence. To integrate professional expertise into Consensus Points, the Panel employs a simplified Delphi methodology. The Delphi approach is often used in contexts “where published information is inadequate or non-existent,” providing “a means of harnessing the insights of appropriate experts to enable decisions to be made.” The 9/11 Consensus Panel is dedicated to using the “best evidence” available in its quest to shed light upon the world-changing events of September 11, 2001. The Scope of “Best Evidence” for the Purposes of the 9/11 Consensus Panel
The Panel uses the term in the very narrow sense of the “best evidence” available with regard to any specific claim of the 9/11 official story that the Panel challenges. It does not mean the strongest evidence against the official story in general. It is simply the best evidence against each particular claim that the Panel addresses. “Best evidence”, as used by the 9/11 Consensus Panel, is not evidence in support of alternative theories of what happened on 9/11. www.consensus911.org/what-is-best-evidence/And also the following: www.consensus911.org/methodology/
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 14, 2013 3:54:20 GMT -5
LOL there's the facts and there's fiction.
Facts are hijackers and hijacked planes that were crashed. For some reason conspiracy theorists require denial of the hijackings and the crashes and go to extreme lengths to invent 'evidence' and they call these conspiracy theory lies 'truth'.
There's much better ways to oppose things like Guantanamo bay, rendition, torture and other war crimes than lying and claiming that the 11th September attacks of 2001 were somehow an inside job.
The common understanding (established consensus) regarding 9/11 is hijacked planes were deliberately crashed and in doing so damaged the twin towers causing their collapse due to structural damage and fire... That's established fact.
This fraudulent organisation you've linked to will not change the common understanding at all.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 14, 2013 7:45:01 GMT -5
"there's the facts and there's fiction"
Actually there's the facts, then there's you. Why do you feel the need to inject your incessant drivel into every single post about 9/11? You just have to have the last word no matter how ridiculous your post is?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 14, 2013 10:00:07 GMT -5
No there's just the facts.
It doesn't matter how many words you use to tell a lie, you're still telling a lie. It doesn't matter how many people believe your lies, you're still telling a lie. It doesn't matter that you believe the lie, you're still telling a lie.
9/11 was a coordinated kamikaze hijacking. You go to very elaborate lengths to try and deny that. But your denial has no basis in fact.
The Thermite theories have been proven wrong. The Cruise missile Pentagon theories have been proven wrong. The A3 Skywarrior theory has been proven wrong. The Controlled demolition theories have been proven wrong. The Pod theories have been proven wrong. The Space beams and holograms theories have been proven wrong. The Tanker theories have been proven wrong. Bill Deagle's mini nuke theory has been proven wrong. Richard Gage has been proven wrong. Steven Jones and Niels Harrit have been proven wrong.
19 hijackers took over four airliners and crashed them. It's that simple.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 14, 2013 10:11:32 GMT -5
That was a rhetorical question. I was sure the answer is yes. Now go post some more useless repetitive drivel to make sure you put in the last word.
|
|
|
Post by richardcavessa on Jun 14, 2013 12:58:17 GMT -5
i wonder if there's any money in naysaying? wot say ye shred?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 14, 2013 13:20:49 GMT -5
I find the very thought highly amusing Richard.
Not only can 'truth'ers not see the bleeding obvious (19 hijackers did it) but they root around through the most ridiculous second rate tripe of conspiracy theories trying to make out that the whole thing was somehow an inside job (even though the twin tower collapses began where the aircraft had struck and fire had burned) and that the twin towers were rigged for demolition somehow (despite no residues of RDX, no blasting caps & no detcord, (which real controlled demolitions have in the debris by the lorry load). Not only that they Doctor videos, fake photographs, misquote eyewitnesses, and try to make out that WTC 7 fell freefall from top to bottom in 2.25 seconds!
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 14, 2013 14:04:15 GMT -5
"'truth'ers' ... try to make out that WTC 7 fell freefall from top to bottom in 2.25 seconds"
Top to bottom? No, NIST did document that WTC7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds ("stage 2" of the collapse as they classified it), that's in the NIST Final Report, PAGE 48. You need the link again? So NIST are "'truth'ers" now? And you support NIST's findings 100% so you must be a "'truth'er" too. That's a really nasty word "truth", liars are much nicer people, right Shred?
|
|