9/11

The Black Boxes

 

I don't know what he did or did not say afterwards.
And I don't know if a signal was picked up or not.

 

So, he said what he said, but you don't believe him?

The fact that you don't know whether or not a signal was picked up from a black box at Ground Zero tells me that you didn't research the issue, but are nevertheless making conclusive claims about it. That's why this discussion is over.

 

I probably have done more research and reading on this subject then you.

He was either mistaken or just flat out wrong. As for a signal, at one point someone heard something but it is not believed to be from the black box.

It's nice that you end a discussion with zero participation.

 

Of course you haven't done more research than me. Otherwise, you would have known that in a 9/18/01 executive summary to New York Governor George Pataki, Edward Jacoby, Director of the New York State Emergency Management Office, said that investigators had identified the signal from one of the black boxes in the WTC debris. Is this the "someone" whom you say heard something? And if so, how did it come to be "believed" that it was not from the black box?

And how did you arrive at the conclusion that DeMasi was mistaken or flat-out wrong? Perhaps if you had researched the issue in the past, or at least before your last post, you would have seen that DeMasi's statement is in line with investigators.

 

It's totally true that I could research it more - but I used to actually believe the conspiracy stuff about it and think that I'd DONE my research - but then I considered the motives and benefits and costs of such a conspiracy - and determined that while our government obviously profited (or, some interests and industries within the government) immensely from the attacks, there was simply no need to do that, not to mention no competence to do that. It would be so immensely risky and pointless, when all you have to do is let the bad guys do their thing.... They ignored the fact that we knew bin ladin was trying to get us, they ignored the obvious jihadiis wanting to learn to fly but not land, they just didn't give two fucks. It's not that we didn't have the checks to prevent that or that we needed to beef up security, it's that we needed to actually use the systems we had, instead of telling people to shut up. You can be complicit without being a co-conspirator - in the sense that there was some degree of conspiracy to let it happen, well, that's obvious - but it was a separate conspiracy from the hijackers conspiracy to carry it out.

I also didn't used to believe that the towers could have fallen from just a fire. That was before I got into metalworking.

I mean, do you think they had explosives in the towers? I used to, from the way they fell - but being a bit wiser (if only a tiny bit) to the world and the havoc that heat can cause, I have no problem seeing how the center structure could be caused to catastrophically fail from heat - despite the whole "platforms hanging from a central core that can resist disaster" construction.

What would the motive to hide the black boxes be? Any real conspiracy like that would have NO problem just not having the bad guys say stupid crap at the last moment - say jihadii things, and that's all it takes, no need to fake it, even if you assume conspiracy. Even if you believe there was NO takeover, how hard would it be to fake a blackbox recording? How hard would it be to plant an entire fake black box? It's one thing everyone thinks of when you think plane crash, how could they neglect such an obvious part of an airliner crash?

It just doesn't add up to point to conspiracy. If it was a conspiracy that was SO amazingly weak they couldn't mumble some arabic crap into garage band and say it was the recording, how on EARTH could they have carried out a conspiracy to do so much as wipe their own asses?

 

If the question is whether or not the black boxes were hidden, DeMasi gives his account of finding them, and investigators tell of a signal from a black box coming from the WTC debris. Contending that there was no motivation for hiding them does not negate DeMasi's account and the findings of investigators.

 

Just because you knew one fact that I did not doe snot mean you have done more research. Yes that is what I am refering to, because if you read the 9/11 Commission report it is advised that the signal was not from the black box.

His statement is not in line with the 9/11 Commission or anyone else who was there. One man makes a claim and somehow it is the truth? It is fact?

Why not tell me what you believe about 9/11 and who was behind it?

 

No 9/11 Commission members ever contacted DeMasi. So, the Commission's report is incomplete. Is that all you have to discredit DeMasi--an incomplete Commission Report?

And what about the investigators who reported a signal coming from a black box in the WTC debris? Did the 9/11 Commission Report explain why these investigators were wrong? You said that it was later "believed" that the signal was not from the black box. How did it come to be believed that it was not from the black box? And who came to later believe that, and why?

 

I will ask again, tell me what happened on 9/11, who was behind it.

 

People saying shit that doesn't make any sense no matter what approach you take to something or what motive you imagine from who, is all it takes to discredit them.

Maybe he's credible, and it ended up trucked out in the illegally hasty cleanup. Who knows. But without a motive, there's no reason to assume massive governmental foul play, as opposed to the guy not being credible.

So, yeah - he doesn't sound credible, given what you're saying.

 

That's funny, I could have sworn we were discussing the issue of black boxes. You didn't answer the questions put to you. And now you're falling back on the old "solve the whole crime or nothing you say is true" tactic. Here's a refresher:

No 9/11 Commission members ever contacted DeMasi. So, the Commission's report is incomplete. Is that all you have to discredit DeMasi--an incomplete Commission Report?

And what about the investigators who reported a signal coming from a black box in the WTC debris? Did the 9/11 Commission Report explain why these investigators were wrong? You said that it was later "believed" that the signal was not from the black box. How did it come to be believed that it was not from the black box? And who came to later believe that, and why?

 

You're conveniently overlooking the fact that DeMasi's account is in line with investigators. Now, why don't you go ahead and try to discredit them, too?

 

"investigators" like who?

They are 100% as discredited as him.

Either they're full of shit, OR the things ended up with the rest of the trash - or maybe as unscrupulous souvenirs.

 

Are you trying to imply that the Director of the New York State Emergency Management Office accepted a report from investigators without first establishing the credibility of the investigators?

You are attempting to discredit the investigators and DeMasi despite knowing that the 9/11 Commission did not even bother talking to them.

I find your idea that something as important as the black boxes could have been thrown into the debris pile, or your idea that someone might have snatched them up as a souvenir--as if it had any value as such--a bit silly. They would go to prison for compromising a crime scene if they pull them out of their hiding place.

 

Everything about it summed up, therefore believing the official story word for word requires a huge leap of faith. The fact everyone knew within minutes that it was Bin Laden seems iffy, but hey, why would we be lied to? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

 

I've been told many times that questioning the real story behind Nine Eleven is disrespectful to those who died that day... But why would that be? Especially since lots of the family members themselves are questioning the real story and have been for 13 years.

 

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The Levant is an area that includes, I believe Iraq, Syria, Jordan, part of Turkey and maybe even Israel.

 

I amswered the questions you posed to me, but you fail to answer the ones I pose to you. Great conversation.

 

Really? Then perhaps you could direct me to the post in which you answered this:

And what about the investigators who reported a signal coming from a black box in the WTC debris? Did the 9/11 Commission Report explain why these investigators were wrong? You said that it was later "believed" that the signal was not from the black box. How did it come to be believed that it was not from the black box? And who came to later believe that, and why?