FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Conspiracy theory - 9/11





Da Rossa
deanhills wrote:
Right. I was also completely unaware of the conspiracy. Sounds almost similar to the one of the World Trade Centre?


I don't know the motivation to the WTC.
But some facts have to be remembered, also some circumstances.

1 - They say there were four airplanes, but we only have record of three. Two at the WTC and one at Pennsylvania. The one alleged to have crashed in the pentagon have left absolutely no trace. Not a airplane tail, wing, a single piece. Not to mention the height on the wall the plane was supposed to have flown;

2 - Like in Oklahoma, the video footage was seized from the gas station nearby by FBI agents and never released;

3 - The special comission to investigate the attack closed the reports prematurely.

4 - Cutting objects and wires to build that fake bomb could not have been let by the airport scanners in three different flights;

5 - A flight manual written in arabic was found very quickly, in the next day, inside a car;

6 - The identities of the 19 terrorists were so quickly found out;

7 - Osama has not been captured even 9 years away, like the US couldn't. Obvious lack of political will;

8 - F18's took a long time to receive the order to take off and intercept Airplane #2

9 - A spray deodorant, used to make difficult the access to the cockpit wouldn't be allowed in the hand luggage either;

so,

10 - No thing in that magnitude could reasonably have been planned without at least some inner help.

...and I didn't say everything.
deanhills
At the time when the Twin Towers happened I was in Canada. And I could not get it then, and I can't get it now. I still think that the way it has been perfectly synchronized, i.e. those terrorists being able to get through customs exactly at the right time, and the flights being so perfectly synchronized as well to get to the Twin towers at the exact same time, were just too good to be true. I hope one day in the dizzy future when someone sifts through some papers, that more information can be revealed, as I'm sure that lots of information has been withheld.
Bikerman
Da Rossa wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Right. I was also completely unaware of the conspiracy. Sounds almost similar to the one of the World Trade Centre?


I don't know the motivation to the WTC.
But some facts have to be remembered, also some circumstances.

1 - They say there were four airplanes, but we only have record of three. Two at the WTC and one at Pennsylvania. The one alleged to have crashed in the pentagon have left absolutely no trace. Not a airplane tail, wing, a single piece. Not to mention the height on the wall the plane was supposed to have flown;

Nope, not so.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon#bigplane

Quote:
3 - The special comission to investigate the attack closed the reports prematurely.

Not really. The reports are available HERE and the commission was only closed after they were produced.
Quote:
4 - Cutting objects and wires to build that fake bomb could not have been let by the airport scanners in three different flights;
Say's who? What fake bomb are you talking about?
Quote:
5 - A flight manual written in arabic was found very quickly, in the next day, inside a car;
And? The car was parked in the airport carpark and was registered to one of the passengers...so they checked it...
Quote:
6 - The identities of the 19 terrorists were so quickly found out;
Because the hijackers didn't try to conceal their identities. The FBI simply compared the passenger lists with the available intelligence...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks#Identifying_the_hijackers
Quote:
7 - Osama has not been captured even 9 years away, like the US couldn't. Obvious lack of political will;
Probably so, but that proves nothing about a conspiracy..
Quote:
8 - F18's took a long time to receive the order to take off and intercept Airplane #2

Not really.....
Quote:
On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked—the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-planes#nostand
Quote:
9 - A spray deodorant, used to make difficult the access to the cockpit wouldn't be allowed in the hand luggage either;
Hand luggage was not routinely checked before 9/11.

There are plenty of factual sources out there which explain this stuff.
The BBC even did a documentary on the matter:
http://bikerman.co.uk/media/video/9-11/Default.html

Now, this is sidetracking the OP so if you want to discuss conspiracy theories please start a new thread.
Da Rossa
@Bike

Quote:
Not really. The reports are available HERE and the commission was only closed after they were produced.


So, that's the point! "after they were produced". But, as I'm speaking, we're talking about americans helping the attacks. Americans that can be (more likely) or not connected to the government. Since I can't say for good because we can't know the truth, my last post was about suspicions. And this comission may be biased. May.

Quote:
Nope, not so.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon#bigplane


But I didn't say anything about the breach itself. I was talking about the height flown from the ground, which, I believe, is so small that a inexperienced pilot wouldn't be able to maintain for long without having a great probability of hitting the ground and disintegrating first. Also, look at this part:

Quote:
What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass


..from the engineer. Well, I beg his pardon to disagree by saying that could be true for some portion of the plane, but not entirely. Something solid should have been left. Not questioning his authority as an expert in solids dynamics.

Quote:
Say's who? What fake bomb are you talking about?


Again, I can't prove anything. And I can't even have access to any primary source of information on this matter. I was referring to a Discovery Documentary about the first plane to hit, Mohamed Atta and his pals. Sorry but I don't have the title. Discovery Channel might have explored this several times. This is just an element to enforce the suspicion, not the proof.

Quote:
And? The car was parked in the airport carpark and was registered to one of the passengers...so they checked it...


I inspired myself in ocalhoun's post about the quick discovery of a license plate. Couldn't the manual have been planted?

Quote:
Because the hijackers didn't try to conceal their identities. The FBI simply compared the passenger lists with the available intelligence...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks#Identifying_the_hijackers


But I overheard somewhere in the world that they had no criminal record or had a space in CIA's watchlists, which is why they were assigned! The mentor would have chosen clean guys to go unoticed! But in that point I agree with you.

Quote:
Probably so, but that proves nothing about a conspiracy..


But this is still another element that pushes our conviction away from the official story...

Quote:
"They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us,"


That's the very why! They did take a long time to receive the order! Smile Another thing that didn't go the best way.

Quote:
Hand luggage was not routinely checked before 9/11.


The spray deodorant can only be placed in a pressurized metal can. Metals are supposed to be caught in the X-Ray... But in that you can be right as well.
Bikerman
Da Rossa wrote:
@Bike

Quote:
Not really. The reports are available HERE and the commission was only closed after they were produced.


So, that's the point! "after they were produced". But, as I'm speaking, we're talking about americans helping the attacks. Americans that can be (more likely) or not connected to the government. Since I can't say for good because we can't know the truth, my last post was about suspicions. And this comission may be biased. May.
The commission's job was to produce the report. They did. After they had done their job the commission was disbanded. What else would they have done? I don't see your point.
Saying 'the commission may be biased' is just verbiage, unless you have some evidence that it WAS biased.
Quote:
But I didn't say anything about the breach itself. I was talking about the height flown from the ground, which, I believe, is so small that a inexperienced pilot wouldn't be able to maintain for long without having a great probability of hitting the ground and disintegrating first.
That is just nonsense from the conspiracy video, spouted by some ex-academic who should know better.
There are numerous eye-witnesses who SAW it. Are they all liars as well?
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html?q=911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html

Quote:
Also, look at this part:
Quote:
What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass

..from the engineer. Well, I beg his pardon to disagree by saying that could be true for some portion of the plane, but not entirely. Something solid should have been left. Not questioning his authority as an expert in solids dynamics.
There was plenty of solid material left.

Quote:
Again, I can't prove anything. And I can't even have access to any primary source of information on this matter. I was referring to a Discovery Documentary about the first plane to hit, Mohamed Atta and his pals. Sorry but I don't have the title. Discovery Channel might have explored this several times. This is just an element to enforce the suspicion, not the proof.
In other words you are just making it up as you go along....If you can't be bothered to even check your sources then why do you expect others to do it for you? And why bother posting things you cannot substantiate as if they were facts?
Quote:
I inspired myself in ocalhoun's post about the quick discovery of a license plate. Couldn't the manual have been planted?
The moon could be made of cheese - but it isn't.
Quote:
But I overheard somewhere in the world that they had no criminal record or had a space in CIA's watchlists, which is why they were assigned! The mentor would have chosen clean guys to go unoticed! But in that point I agree with you.
Overheard? Somewhere? Are you serious? Do you actually have ANYTHING to offer aside from supposition, make believe and unattributed comments?
Quote:
That's the very why! They did take a long time to receive the order! Smile Another thing that didn't go the best way.
Watch the documentary - it is explained in detail.
Quote:
The spray deodorant can only be placed in a pressurized metal can. Metals are supposed to be caught in the X-Ray... But in that you can be right as well.
I have carried aerosols through customs MANY times - before 9/11 - and never once been challenged. Before 9/11 the assumption was that hand-luggage was OK because it had to be carried onto the plane and who would blow themselves up? Now, of course, we know different.
Da Rossa
Quote:
The commission's job was to produce the report. They did. After they had done their job the commission was disbanded. What else would they have done? I don't see your point.
Saying 'the commission may be biased' is just verbiage, unless you have some evidence that it WAS biased.


This is the point, I don't have evidence, and no one has! Or, maybe the ones how hid it Razz.

What was the prime interest upon the constitution of the comission in the first place? Bring tranquility to the public and estabilish a clear enemy-culprit. I'm not drinking in Michael Moore's cup of water, and I'm not implying that "The US" did it. All I want to say is that things like these just can't be done without inner help, or, at least, inner information! Also, I'm not saying this because I hate Americans because I don't, on the opposite. Deanhills know what I'm talking about at this.

Quote:
That is just nonsense from the conspiracy video, spouted by some ex-academic who should know better.
There are numerous eye-witnesses who SAW it. Are they all liars as well?
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html?q=911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html


Bikerman wins.

Quote:
That is just nonsense from the conspiracy video, spouted by some ex-academic who should know better.


Bikerman wins.

Quote:
There was plenty of solid material left.


Bikerman wins.

Quote:
In other words you are just making it up as you go along....If you can't be bothered to even check your sources then why do you expect others to do it for you? And why bother posting things you cannot substantiate as if they were facts?


Because, like I'm saying from the beginning, I'm not here to prove anything on this. I'm not going to court or anything, and this was not supposed to be such a scientific discussion. I think you might have overeacted. No one is capable of speaking what really happened on this.

Quote:
The moon could be made of cheese - but it isn't


LOL Smile
And that was just a comparison.

Quote:
Overheard? Somewhere? Are you serious? Do you actually have ANYTHING to offer aside from supposition, make believe and unattributed comments?


Please read three quotes above.

Quote:
Watch the documentary - it is explained in detail.


Which one? I can't birng myself to remember the title or anything. It was aired here in Brazil in '04, '05 or '06. Kinda difficult.

Peace, Biker!
Bikerman
The point is that this type of conspiracy theory is not just a bit of fun. I'm fortunate in that nobody close to me was killed on 9/11, but I know people who were not so fortunate and every time they hear this tripe it brings back very upsetting memories.

Why assume it was anything other than terrorists doing what they said they would do? Any other possibility requires so much conspiracy, organisation, timing and people keeping quiet that it is ridiculous to even suggest it - particularly when you apparently have no reason or evidence to do so.

The documentary I talked about is HERE.
(It requires SilverLight - if you haven't got it installed it should prompt you).
Da Rossa
Look, my intention here is not to throw rocks at the windmill and see them cracking at all directions and hitting no matter who. I respect and feel genuinely sorry for both the victims, which had their lives ended in such an evil way, and their families.

If you're saying it would require so much conspiracy for insiders to do/help it, then no less effort would had to be done by the terrorists themselves. It required a lot of preparation. My point is: they got help. That's it, that's just it. I don't know why. I'm not saying this is an 'American work', but they got help. I don't know the level of inside involvement in it, but, nonetheless, if I can't prove it, I can feel it. And, since I'm not suggesting any suspect in particular or implicating any individual, then I think I'm making no moral mistake in here.

You can't just narrow down the possibilities just because the available facts/evidence point otherwise. Again, I never got beyond the imagination field. I'm not accusing, and this is not something no one can even begin trying to prove or bring to court. And this is not about the adamant "right to say my opinion", it's about the spectrum of possibilities. Something can be difficult to accomplish, but not ridiculous to consider. Your speech makes it clear you have 100% absolutely sure that there was not even a single little hand. You're getting upset for nothing. And I hope it's not about my last post that sounded ironic, because it was not. I have this problem irl, sometimes people don't understand I'm being honest. I can be a stupid wannabe with no problem, but I'm honest and I know, or at least try to, know my limitations. Just a sidenote anyway.

At last: labeling this as a "conspiracy theory" is so juvenile. Instead of getting inside the issue willingly, they simply use this expression and the underlying intention is to say "you're so stupid. Go find something else to do". I hear a lot in here when I talk about Brazilian problems (people in here nave no will to get to know what's going on). I might not have a point but still I got inside the discussion normally.
Bikerman
Quote:
You can't just narrow down the possibilities just because the available facts/evidence point otherwise.
Of course you can. How else should one proceed? On 'feelings'?

Of course it would NOT require the same level of conspiracy for the actual terrorists to do the bombing. They had to keep their intentions quiet, get the necessary training, and do the job.
A US conspiracy would have to have involved thousands of people - eye witnesses would have to be lying, the air-traffic control people likewise, the fire-crews, the military planners and soldiers, etc etc etc. It is ridiculous.

Saying they must have 'got help' means nothing. What help? To do what?
I'm not annoyed, I'm irritated that's all. It always irritates me when people start chucking out accusations that they have no clue about.

Have you read the 9/11 commission's report? If you have then please tell me which parts you think are wrong and why. If you haven't then come back when you have.
menino
Another theory about 9/11 is that no jews were killed in the attack. The saying goes that all jews were prewarned not to go to work the next day.
Again... its just a theory and there are no factual basis on them.

These theories don't have conclusive evidences and closures, and just boggles the mind more than not.
Bikerman
But it is simply wrong. There were over 250* Jews killed in the twin towers. When people blindly repeat this nonsense without checking, other people read it and repeat it as fact.

It took me 2 minutes to get the figure from several sources....why couldn't you do that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#Jewish_and_Israeli_involvement
http://web.archive.org/web/20070211085836/http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/14-260933.html
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.asp


If people cannot be bothered to check for themselves then they shouldn't post it. It is anti-semitic propaganda which you are now helping spread.

*The actual number is impossible to know, since not everyone who is Jewish is known to be. It is somewhere between 250 and 400 - which is exactly what one would expect from the demographic.
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
My point is: they got help. That's it, that's just it. I don't know why. I'm not saying this is an 'American work', but they got help. I don't know the level of inside involvement in it, but, nonetheless, if I can't prove it, I can feel it. And, since I'm not suggesting any suspect in particular or implicating any individual, then I think I'm making no moral mistake in here.
That was EXACTLY what my thoughts were immediately after the event, and when in Canada we had to view repeat news broadcasts in the media of the twin towers strike by the planes over and over and OVER again. The terrorists had to have had help from somewhere. It was just too perfectly orchestrated for it to only be their efforts. I don't know who helped them either. But I don't buy that it was only the terrorists' doing.
ocalhoun
If you really want to look for conspiracy in the 9/11 attacks, you need to look for something much more subtle.

Is it possible that what hit the pentagon was actually a missile? No.
Is it possible the the planes were actually hijacked by government agents, and evidence to the contrary planted? No.

Is it possible that the terrorists were given some expert advice from certain people in the government? Yes.
Is it possible that intelligence reports before the attack were suppressed or purposely ignored? Yes.
Was there a motive for allowing the attack to succeed? Possibly, though one wonders why Afghanistan was blamed... If it was a conspiracy, Iraq or Iran should have been blamed and attacked first.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
If you really want to look for conspiracy in the 9/11 attacks, you need to look for something much more subtle.

Is it possible that what hit the pentagon was actually a missile? No.
Is it possible the the planes were actually hijacked by government agents, and evidence to the contrary planted? No.

Is it possible that the terrorists were given some expert advice from certain people in the government? Yes.
Is it possible that intelligence reports before the attack were suppressed or purposely ignored? Yes.
Was there a motive for allowing the attack to succeed? Possibly, though one wonders why Afghanistan was blamed... If it was a conspiracy, Iraq or Iran should have been blamed and attacked first.
Ocalhoun, if you read the last postings by me and Da Rossa, all we are saying is that something does not make sense in this lot. We are not supporting any one conspiracy theory. All we are saying is that these terrorists must have had inside help. I remember just after it happened my immediate thoughts were how perfectly synchronized all of the plane trips had been including the terrorists' effortless access through security at the airports. All of what had happened transpired too effortless and easy for terrorists who were not home grown and who were operating on their own.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
If you really want to look for conspiracy in the 9/11 attacks, you need to look for something much more subtle.

Is it possible that what hit the pentagon was actually a missile? No.
Is it possible the the planes were actually hijacked by government agents, and evidence to the contrary planted? No.

Is it possible that the terrorists were given some expert advice from certain people in the government? Yes.
Is it possible that intelligence reports before the attack were suppressed or purposely ignored? Yes.
Was there a motive for allowing the attack to succeed? Possibly, though one wonders why Afghanistan was blamed... If it was a conspiracy, Iraq or Iran should have been blamed and attacked first.
Ocalhoun, if you read the last postings by me and Da Rossa, all we are saying is that something does not make sense in this lot. We are not supporting any one conspiracy theory. All we are saying is that these terrorists must have had inside help. I remember just after it happened my immediate thoughts were how perfectly synchronized all of the plane trips had been including the terrorists' effortless access through security at the airports. All of what had happened transpired too effortless and easy for terrorists who were not home grown and who were operating on their own.


Well, these people are/were not dumb. They had extensive training, were well educated academically, and at least one of the hijackers on 9/11 had a commercial pilot license (other hijackers took flight lessons in the US upon arrival). The attack was planned extremely carefully for years (the idea is said to have been presented to bin Laden in 1996), it's not like this was some impulsive attack out of the blue. They accounted for the variables, they did test runs, etc. etc.

It wasn't that hard to get through airport security prior to 9/11.

Even if we jump on the assumption that there was some degree of an inside job -- which is a leap in itself given the lack of evidence -- the problem is people immediately want to jump to the "insiders" being the US government. Which is stupid to put it simply. Why? Because there's literally nothing connecting the attacks to an inside job from anyone, much less the US government. If you wish to make an extraordinary claim, you should be prepared to back it up with extraordinary evidence. If you can't do that, then your claim carries little weight and you can't be frustrated when people don't accept it.
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:

Even if we jump on the assumption that there was some degree of an inside job -- which is a leap in itself given the lack of evidence -- the problem is people immediately want to jump to the "insiders" being the US government. Which is stupid to put it simply. Why? Because there's literally nothing connecting the attacks to an inside job from anyone, much less the US government.

True... There is another group of 'insiders' that I would suspect. The ultimate insiders, actually. And they've previously stated (though it is very rare for them to actually state anything) that they are against Islamic fundamentalism... It would be in their interests to set the US against their enemies...
Da Rossa
Quote:
Is it possible that what hit the pentagon was actually a missile? No.
Is it possible the the planes were actually hijacked by government agents, and evidence to the contrary planted? No.


1- Until short ago the answer to this would be: "why not"?
2- Indeed. I never said US agents were the executors.

Quote:
Is it possible that the terrorists were given some expert advice from certain people in the government? Yes.
Is it possible that intelligence reports before the attack were suppressed or purposely ignored? Yes.


You got it in the right point of view.

Quote:
If it was a conspiracy, Iraq or Iran should have been blamed and attacked first.


Not necessarily! Afghanistan was the easiest target, convenient to start a campaign with a easier victory over a bloody regime! Iraq was tougher. Iran we don't know yet. Iran might still be in someone's agenda. Don't you think it is possible?

Quote:
All of what had happened transpired too effortless and easy for terrorists who were not home grown and who were operating on their own.


This is appearantly what Biker didn't understand what I mean! Yes, I may have come with some obsolete questionings, but this is the center of it.

@liljp617

All you said appears to be right until this paragraph, which deserves some considerations:

Quote:
Even if we jump on the assumption that there was some degree of an inside job -- which is a leap in itself given the lack of evidence -- the problem is people immediately want to jump to the "insiders" being the US government. Which is stupid to put it simply. Why? Because there's literally nothing connecting the attacks to an inside job from anyone, much less the US government. If you wish to make an extraordinary claim, you should be prepared to back it up with extraordinary evidence. If you can't do that, then your claim carries little weight and you can't be frustrated when people don't accept it.


We, at least I, did not jump directly into the insiders theory. I myself took some months of thinking to put things together. And, of course, there is no conclusion, since I don't have access to any evidence. And I did not point at the gvt itself, but we have to remember that "the government" is a rather large organization. There are many people working in many departments. If one agent, or possibly ten were involved, we could never say this was "government job".

About the lack of elements connecting to an alleged insider, please have in mind that evidence was quickly erased from existence in the Oklahoma bombing. This is why we are left behind with our thoughts, assumptions, nothing further that.
Bikerman
The whole thing is an example of what is known as 'argument from incredulity' - ie 'I don't believe it, therefore it cannot be so'.
Nobody has actually suggested why this could not have been what it appears to be - a terrorist strike. There is nothing that would have required specialist insider knowledge. The fact that people are reluctant to accept that a bunch of terrorists could have carried out this attack is not evidence that they didn't, or that there must have been some collusion or conspiracy.
The only conspiracy, as noted in the documentary I cited, was AFTER the attack - to cover-up the incompetence by officials in failing to spot and stop the attack from happening.
Da Rossa
Bike,

It appears to be a terrorist strike and it was. This is unquestionable. The thing is: although no inside knowledge would have been necessary, we believe, for reasons we can't exactly explain why, that there were some help.

We can't talk probabilities, we're just saying that this is more likely to have been helped by at least one insider, not necessarily from Bush's Office, but may even be the least x-ray scanner guard!
Bikerman
But if you can't explain the reason then there is nothing to discuss.....
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
Well, these people are/were not dumb. They had extensive training, were well educated academically, and at least one of the hijackers on 9/11 had a commercial pilot license (other hijackers took flight lessons in the US upon arrival). The attack was planned extremely carefully for years (the idea is said to have been presented to bin Laden in 1996), it's not like this was some impulsive attack out of the blue. They accounted for the variables, they did test runs, etc. etc.
But they were not of the land, and must have stood out to everyone. They were from a completely different world and it could not have been that easy to communicate either without attracting suspicion to themselves. they would have had to make test runs for years and years to have succeeded to the brilliant extent that they had. And if they did manage to succeed to that extent, with no help, why are we not seeing more of those brilliant and almost effortless acts of terror?

liljp617 wrote:
It wasn't that hard to get through airport security prior to 9/11.
Maybe for one or two, then OK, but for so many all at the same time. Bizarre!

liljp617 wrote:
Even if we jump on the assumption that there was some degree of an inside job -- which is a leap in itself given the lack of evidence -- the problem is people immediately want to jump to the "insiders" being the US government. Which is stupid to put it simply. Why? Because there's literally nothing connecting the attacks to an inside job from anyone, much less the US government. If you wish to make an extraordinary claim, you should be prepared to back it up with extraordinary evidence. If you can't do that, then your claim carries little weight and you can't be frustrated when people don't accept it.
There are many theories, including the outrageous one of Israel. I have not found one that I could say is 100% waterproof yet.
Bikerman
'of the land'? You mean they were not Americans. Why would they stand-out? America is full of immigrants.
Why would they have had problems communicating? They spoke English and had been in the US for well over a year before 9/11?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks

PS - There WAS a test run of sorts, from which they learned many lessons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot
Da Rossa
Quote:
But if you can't explain the reason then there is nothing to discuss.....


But I wasn't intending to discuss in the first place... I just brought the facts that underpass my mind that would lead me to think there was at least one insider. Intuition, only.

Quote:
why are we not seeing more of those brilliant and almost effortless acts of terror?


Yes, since the evil creative mind appears to be heading the race some of the times.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
'of the land'? You mean they were not Americans. Why would they stand-out? America is full of immigrants.
Why would they have had problems communicating? They spoke English and had been in the US for well over a year before 9/11?
Did you see their photos? For starters?
Bikerman wrote:
PS - There WAS a test run of sorts, from which they learned many lessons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot
Right. For it to have been credible to me however, I would have wanted at least one small thing to have gone against them.

If they were REALLY that good, why have we not had an escalation of more perfectly executed terror attacks? Do you want to tell me that the security is THAT good now? Especially when an incident like the attempted hijacking of a plane last Xmas happened? And it was obvious that the left hand in security was not completely in touch with the right hand?
Bikerman
Photo's?

What am I supposed to be looking for?

How would you know what went wrong for them? There might have been 10 or more intended hijackings but only the 4 succeeded? Maybe 6 bottled-out or maybe they were turned away at customs. How would you know?
We certainly know that 1 of the 4 failed and crashed into a field, because of the heroism of some of the passengers.
Da Rossa
Just a question: did the Discovery documentary added a bit of fiction to the narrative when it showed one of the guys (the one who stabbed the Israeli captain, which could foil the attack) with wires around his waist to pretend to be carrying a bomb? It happened to ask this when you talked about the heroism.

I may be confusing the planes, but, who knows?
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Well, these people are/were not dumb. They had extensive training, were well educated academically, and at least one of the hijackers on 9/11 had a commercial pilot license (other hijackers took flight lessons in the US upon arrival). The attack was planned extremely carefully for years (the idea is said to have been presented to bin Laden in 1996), it's not like this was some impulsive attack out of the blue. They accounted for the variables, they did test runs, etc. etc.
But they were not of the land, and must have stood out to everyone. They were from a completely different world and it could not have been that easy to communicate either without attracting suspicion to themselves. they would have had to make test runs for years and years to have succeeded to the brilliant extent that they had. And if they did manage to succeed to that extent, with no help, why are we not seeing more of those brilliant and almost effortless acts of terror?


What do you mean "not of the land?" Why would they attract attention? Most of the hijackers were located in San Diego for around a year prior to the attack. They wouldn't have attracted any attention simply by their appearances, as San Diego's population is full of people of different ethnicity. They spoke English and were well educated also. And of course there's a large Arab-American population in the US.

Why are we not seeing more of this? Well, we've had more than a couple attempts since 9/11 across the world...some successes, some failures. Security is quite obviously taken much more seriously than it was pre-9/11 -- 9/11 revolutionized security, especially in terms of airports. We continue to see increases in airport security with the recent x-ray machine controversy.

My other inclination is they're using most of their resources trying to fend off a military force of tens of thousands on a daily basis.

My final thought is that, again, these people are not stupid. They waited six years between the Bojinka plot and 9/11. They know what they're doing -- we're not talking about a handful of uneducated dolts trying have a little fun, we're talking about well-educated individuals with ample access to funding who have the patience to work out and test extremely detailed plots.

liljp617 wrote:
Quote:
It wasn't that hard to get through airport security prior to 9/11.
Maybe for one or two, then OK, but for so many all at the same time. Bizarre!


As Bikerman pointed out, it's difficult to know how many angles this attack was really supposed to come from. The Bojinka plot was planned to crash 12 airliners into the White House, US Capitol Building, WTC, Sears Tower, Transamerica Pyramid, and many more locations. We can't really know if 9/11 was intended to be larger or not...perhaps some hijackers backed out at the last minute, perhaps some were not allowed entrance to the country for whatever reason, perhaps some were caught at security checkpoints in the airport, and so on. The 9/11 Commission Report (I don't like it anymore than anyone else does, but what the hell) claimed there was supposed to be 26 al-Qaeda hijackers rather than 19.



I have not said inside help on 9/11 is an impossible explanation (I will say inside help from the federal government is close to impossible). I have simply said I would like some evidence before I'm really expected to go along with it. If there's no evidence, just random guesses based on personal views, I have little choice but to remain very skeptical of such explanation.
Navigator
Lets just remember that the whole intelligence community in the United States has secrecy as their first rule in doing everything, they probably don't even know who is working for who anyhow.
Da Rossa
So you're saying that this could have been helped by undercover agents which the Agency itself would not normally know? Agents that have been trained during their life to work as professionals and don't leave evidence behind?
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
If there's no evidence, just random guesses based on personal views, I have little choice but to remain very skeptical of such explanation.
And the other way round. I'm almost certain much of those conspiracy theories are due to holding back on information under the banner of on a need to know basis only. As well as lack of transparency.
Da Rossa
The problem is that some of the so called conspiracy theories are indeed ridiculous, including aliens and stuff, but the interesting part is that the ones implicated tend to rotulate the "9/11 conspiracy theory" in the same group as the supernatural ones, with an objective of painting the ridicule. Here in Brazil, it is very common when you come with a decent story, yet impossible to prove, and people are fast to rotulate as a CT.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
If there's no evidence, just random guesses based on personal views, I have little choice but to remain very skeptical of such explanation.
And the other way round. I'm almost certain much of those conspiracy theories are due to holding back on information under the banner of on a need to know basis only. As well as lack of transparency.


Like what? Just about everything dealing with facts and evidence that has been brought up in this thread has been reasonably discredited. The only things that haven't been discredited are the conspiracies that lack backing -- because you simply cannot prove something like that wrong. People who promote baseless conspiracies tend to constantly flirt with the Problem of Falsification...they'll do anything and everything to twist facts to fit their viewpoint. It goes against basic logic. You can't argue reasonably with someone operating under those conditions.

Information on what topics is being withheld? What would you like to know more about? My guess is the information is already out there, and actually probably fairly accessible.
jwellsy
I'm surprised that only 3,000 people died. I've heard that there were normally 50,000 people working in the towers. Evacuating 47,000 people in 20 minutes or so is quite a feat (almost unbelievable).

It was a direct terrorist attack with an extremely low probability of anyone in either political party being directly complicit. There is a slightly higher probability of the worlds ultra elites like George Soros would "nudge" events to benefit their agenda through anarchy.
Bikerman
I don't find that hard to credit, knowing how many businesses work. Firstly, remember that one tower was hit 17 mins after the other. That left a lot of time to evacuate it. Secondly, it happened at around 8.45am and if the businesses were anything like many I've worked in (IT contracting) then many of the more senior staff would not be in work before 9.30-10am - one of the perks of promotion is to be able to set your day to avoid the rush hours...Finally there was some luck involved. The first impact was higher up the North Tower which meant fewer people were trapped and the second, lower impact, was on the South Tower which had already started to be evacuated. Had it been the other way around it would have been much worse.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
Like what?
Apparently there were more than one video recording available that filmed the plane that hit the Pentagon. So of course people get suspicious why the recordings have been confiscated. I'm not saying that there is a conspiracy. But here I am giving an example of PR in not giving full information (or perhaps not being able to), which obviously get people to wonder and then come to strange conclusions. What do we REALLY know about anything about 9/11 anyway?
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread225549/pg1 (Please focus on the videos that were confiscated and not on any conspiracy theories, as that is not why I am providing you with this thread).
http://911review.com/coverup/pentagon.html

liljp617 wrote:
Just about everything dealing with facts and evidence that has been brought up in this thread has been reasonably discredited.
That is not completely true. This thread was titled by a Moderator, not by Da Rossa, and Da Rossa explained that he never intended it to be about conspiracies.
Bikerman wrote:
This developed into an off-topic side-thread which I have split and saved under a new thread. It can be found HERE.
Bikerman - Moderator
Da Rossa said that he is not into conspiracies, but that there was something that did not sound right to him. I feel exactly the same. I don't have evidence for it, and Da Rossa doesn't have evidence for it either, but there is a nice saying by Shakespeare that describes it just right for me:"Something smells rotten in Denmark".
Smile
Da Rossa
Quote:
-- because you simply cannot prove something like that wrong. People who promote baseless conspiracies tend to constantly flirt with the Problem of Falsification...they'll do anything and everything to twist facts to fit their viewpoint. It goes against basic logic


True and false! True because of the "People who promote baseless conspiracies tend to constantly flirt with the Problem of Falsification..." <-- that's usually what they do. Also they create a picture and really tell a story to fit their scenário. But how much twisted is it? We can't say! And what's illogical about pointing falsifications?

Quote:
My guess is the information is already out there, and actually probably fairly accessible.


Err.. the information that... ficts the picture the powerful interested ones want! You see? This applies to both sides: the theorists and the ones withholding the info!


@ jwellsy

Quote:
It was a direct terrorist attack with an extremely low probability of anyone in either political party being directly complicit. There is a slightly higher probability of the worlds ultra elites like George Soros would "nudge" events to benefit their agenda through anarchy.


Then we're talking about a much deeper thing. As you can see, there is a probability of some politicians being involved. Soros appears to be a metacapitalist, which is bad, but what agenda exactly are you talking about?

@ Biker: what's your point about the senior workers? Sorry but I didn't get it.

@ Dean: the sole fact that videos have been confiscated and never released is A LOT suspicious. This is one of the elements that enforce my feeling that there is some level of inside job.

Quote:
Da Rossa said that he is not into conspiracies, but that there was something that did not sound right to him. I feel exactly the same. I don't have evidence for it, and Da Rossa doesn't have evidence for it either, but there is a nice saying by Shakespeare that describes it just right for me:"Something smells rotten in Denmark".


Good! Very Happy
Bikerman
The point is that many workers would not have been in the building at 8:45am. They would arrive later to miss the morning rush. The offices in the towers tended to be prestigious ones where senior staff would be based, and senior staff tend to have control over their own daily work hours.
Da Rossa
Ok, now I get that specific thing. But what's the whole point about Soros, how to businesses work, # of people in the buildings, the luck factor, difficulty/ease to evacuate, and the control of daily work hours by the senior/junior workers...? Sorry but now I'm floating...
liljp617
Da Rossa wrote:
Quote:
My guess is the information is already out there, and actually probably fairly accessible.


Err.. the information that... ficts the picture the powerful interested ones want! You see? This applies to both sides: the theorists and the ones withholding the info!


Here's the thing...on one of the previous pages, you listed numerous problems you had with how the story is generally told, and Bikerman took that list one-by-one and directly showed you the easily accessible information that discredited basically everything on your list. Some of the information Bikerman posted is almost common knowledge to anybody who's done any amount of research on 9/11, but you didn't seem aware of it from what I gathered (by reading the posts).

Given this, don't you think it's possible that the information you desire is out there, and easy to find for anybody who really wants to be educated on the subject? Perhaps if there isn't a shred of decent information for the things you want to know, then that means the position you're wanting to bolster is an incorrect position. Is that possible?

Again, you're skating on the edge of a system that simply does not accept falsification. That's really not a good system of logic to operate on in my opinion. It probably won't get you anywhere worthwhile.
Da Rossa
Quote:
Given this, don't you think it's possible that the information you desire is out there, and easy to find for anybody who really wants to be educated on the subject? Perhaps if there isn't a shred of decent information for the things you want to know, then that means the position you're wanting to bolster is an incorrect position. Is that possible?


Yes it is plainly possible. And I've been saying that from the beginning. As you can see I'm not whining and defending my position with tooth and nail. I'm trying to widen this discussion without getting beyond the reasonable. This is not a political discussion in which the actors are nazis on one side and jews on the other. This is something about perception of reality, possibilities, logical issues and testimonies. No passion or gambles-to-prove-a-point here. Smile

Quote:
Again, you're skating on the edge of a system that simply does not accept falsification. That's really not a good system of logic to operate on in my opinion. It probably won't get you anywhere worthwhile.


True. But only because I failed to demonstrate there is some falsification. If I could bring up not an evidence, but a reasonable doubt, then the ideal thing would not, obviously, be to conclude that what I'm saying is true, but to assume that there is the simple possibility. This is why our discussion is spinning that much.

To simplify things: my point is:
1 - Da Rossa + Deanhills: "there was some level of inside job".
2 - Then you and Biker come with: "ok, but please present us some evidence".
3 - Me + Dean: We don't have any evidence. But we have feelings of that, be them valid or not.
4 - You guys: then we can't have a conversation.
5 - Us: Ok, I can't bring the evidence, but although there is no evidence, it is "in the reality" the possibility that it still got inside help. Thinking otherwise would be conveniently narrowing down the possibilities. I mean, the existence of the possibilities is a fact itself. This is what we're talking about. We don't want to prove the fact but the possibility.
6 - [...]
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
The point is that many workers would not have been in the building at 8:45am. They would arrive later to miss the morning rush. The offices in the towers tended to be prestigious ones where senior staff would be based, and senior staff tend to have control over their own daily work hours.

That was the main reason for the low death count.
The extra time to evacuate the 2nd tower was mostly wasted; few people left...
Remember that until the second plane hit, most people thought the first was some kind of accident, so why would they evacuate the second tower when a freak accident happened to the first?
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
True. But only because I failed to demonstrate there is some falsification. If I could bring up not an evidence, but a reasonable doubt, then the ideal thing would not, obviously, be to conclude that what I'm saying is true, but to assume that there is the simple possibility. This is why our discussion is spinning that much.
Good point! Well said. Smile

Bikerman. Not sure what you are getting at with saying there were so few people at that time of the day. As would that time of the day not be ideal for getting through security at the airports and do surprise attacks with airplanes? Making a statement of 600 killed in the buildings and approx. 2700 in total is big enough I would have thought. And having hit the Pentagon, even when only approx 200 died, also big enough of a statement. That anyone could attack the Pentagon has to be pretty phenomenal from internal security point of view.
Bikerman
What time of the day are roads busiest in nearly every major city? 8.00am to 9.00am and 4.45pm to 6.00pm - commonly known as the 'rush hours'.
I wasn't talking about airports..I was talking about the reason that there would not have been 50,000 people in the towers at 8.45am.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
I wasn't talking about airports..I was talking about the reason that there would not have been 50,000 people in the towers at 8.45am.
I understood that. You were saying that only your managerial staff would have been there already. And I differ on that too. Cleaning staff usually start first, there are always security staff around, and sometimes there are support staff who arrive ahead of their managers in order to catch up. Some managers also prefer to start later, i.e. they work later at night, and then get in from 9:00 a.m. or later.

But that is just my point of view, as of course I don't have any evidence of that. Would be an interesting study to check what levels of staff and management had been there at that time.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
I understood that. You were saying that only your managerial staff would have been there already.

No, you didn't understand. I said exactly the opposite.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I understood that. You were saying that only your managerial staff would have been there already.

No, you didn't understand. I said exactly the opposite.
Apologies Bikerman. You are right of course. Looks as though we are in agreement on that point then.
jwellsy
Most private sector managers, super-achievers and corporate ladder climbers in a capitalist society that I've known make it a point to come in early so they can plan out the days activities and get a jump on the competition.
Bikerman
Such people are very rarely in the office at all.
My experience is, admittedly, not huge. I have worked mostly in the public sector, and that is not a good comparator. I have worked in industry, though, in a lowish-management position (system manager - IT) and I've visited lots of businesses over the years in one capacity or another, and my own experience is that management staff are pretty much like the rest of us schmoos - they don't like to waste time in traffic, or queuing for transport, unless they have to. I certainly welcomed the opportunity to 'flex' my hours, because it turned a 60 minute journey (set off 7.55am) into a 30 minute journey (set off 8:45am) and again at the end of the day - setting off at 6:00pm rather than 5pm halved the journey time...
deanhills
jwellsy wrote:
Most private sector managers, super-achievers and corporate ladder climbers in a capitalist society that I've known make it a point to come in early so they can plan out the days activities and get a jump on the competition.
That can also be correct. My first boss who was quite high up the corporate ladder started his day religiously at 5:00 a.m. every day. That gave him an incredible head start over others. Also, others were encouraged to start early too. I must say however, he was almost the Director doing that.
ThePolemistis
Guys, here are some real reasons why the US govt hasn't been clearly transparent.

1. Why did Bush lie when he said the first plane hit the tower, when no media reported it on that day?
Here is Bush's speech: Bush lying


2. Tower 7! This was a controlled demolition. No plane hit this tower.
In fact, BBC (in UK) reported that it fell 20 mins before it actually fell.
BBC reporting Tower 7 falling


3. How did they find Muhammad Atta's passport 2 blocks away from the site of Twin Towers when they couldn't find dead bodies?

Quote:
In less than a week came another find, two blocks away from the twin towers, in the shape of Atta's passport. We had all seen the blizzard of paper rain down from the towers, but the idea that Atta's passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged would have tested the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism.
Source



4. This idea of 72 virgins? Every Muslim knows there is no such thing.

[quote=same source as above]" the stuff about 72 virgins awaiting him in heaven first started to circulate."[/quote]

And I can go on....[url][/url]
ThePolemistis
Guys, here are some real reasons why the US govt hasn't been clearly transparent.

1. Why did Bush lie when he said the first plane hit the tower, when no media reported it on that day?
Here is Bush's speech: Bush lying


2. Tower 7! This was a controlled demolition. No plane hit this tower and it wasn't the result of the other towers. The guy Silverstein (i think) admitted it was a controlled demolition.
In fact, BBC (in UK) reported that it fell 20 mins before it actually fell.
BBC reporting Tower 7 falling


3. How did they find Muhammad Atta's passport 2 blocks away from the site of Twin Towers when they couldn't find dead bodies?

The Guardian wrote:
In less than a week came another find, two blocks away from the twin towers, in the shape of Atta's passport. We had all seen the blizzard of paper rain down from the towers, but the idea that Atta's passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged would have tested the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism.
Source



4. This idea of 72 virgins? Every Muslim knows there is no such thing.

The Guardian wrote:
the stuff about 72 virgins awaiting him in heaven first started to circulate.
Source


And I can go on....
Bikerman
Nit picking in the first case. Bush talks about seeing the first plane on the TV. He obviously means he saw the coverage which started soon after the impact, not that he saw the actual plane go into the building. He is known for his peculiar use of English on occasion, but this is not difficult to interpret and only someone with an agenda could possibly see it as some evidence of conspiracy.

Tower 7 was showered with burning debris, caught fire and fell down. Many firefighters witnessed the collapse - indeed a warning was issued when they noticed some structural segments of the tower buckling as a result of the fires. Unless you want to say that FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro and his men are also in on some wider conspiracy then this has no legs, because it was Nigro who ordered his men out of the building because of the signs of imminent collapse.

Silverstein said nothing of the sort. His words were
Quote:
We were just sitting here watching all the smoke pouring up from number 7 ... we really couldn't see much damage on it ... I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion, it looked like it had been done by a demolition crew ... that's number 1, number 2, and now number 7 that have come down from this explosion and folks just simply can't believe it. ... I just never for the life of me imagined that these huge buildings would just fall, and that's what happened, they just crumbled."
It is clear that he is using a simile - it 'looked like' is simply his way of trying to describe the effects produced. He is not saying 'it was' done so and he has since clarified this statement numerous times - but conspiracy theorists don't listen.

The BBC resported that Tower 7 was down before it fell - true.
This is dealt with, in detail, on the BBC website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7434230.stm
ThePolemistis
Bikerman wrote:
Nit picking in the first case. Bush talks about seeing the first plane on the TV. He obviously means he saw the coverage which started soon after the impact, not that he saw the actual plane go into the building. He is known for his peculiar use of English on occasion, but this is not difficult to interpret and only someone with an agenda could possibly see it as some evidence of conspiracy.


Why Lie?
Is it for the same "peculiar use of English" him and Cheney went together to answer to the 911 Commission report panel.

Bikerman wrote:


Tower 7 was showered with burning debris, caught fire and fell down. Many firefighters witnessed the collapse - indeed a warning was issued when they noticed some structural segments of the tower buckling as a result of the fires. Unless you want to say that FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro and his men are also in on some wider conspiracy then this has no legs, because it was Nigro who ordered his men out of the building because of the signs of imminent collapse.

Silverstein said nothing of the sort. His words were
Quote:
We were just sitting here watching all the smoke pouring up from number 7 ... we really couldn't see much damage on it ... I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion, it looked like it had been done by a demolition crew ... that's number 1, number 2, and now number 7 that have come down from this explosion and folks just simply can't believe it. ... I just never for the life of me imagined that these huge buildings would just fall, and that's what happened, they just crumbled."
It is clear that he is using a simile - it 'looked like' is simply his way of trying to describe the effects produced. He is not saying 'it was' done so and he has since clarified this statement numerous times - but conspiracy theorists don't listen.

The BBC resported that Tower 7 was down before it fell - true.
This is dealt with, in detail, on the BBC website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7434230.stm



So how long did Tower 7 take to fall? Do you really think fire could result in the building falling so quickly and the way it fell?


You still didn't answer my question 3
ThePolemistis wrote:

3. How did they find Muhammad Atta's passport 2 blocks away from the site of Twin Towers when they couldn't find dead bodies?
Bikerman
The timeline, the accounts of the fire crews and other evidence are all available below
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

I don't know much about Atta's passport being found. It strikes me as unlikely but not impossible. There were plenty of body parts found, as well as 'fragile' things like seat covers and life-vests.
ThePolemistis
Bikerman wrote:
The timeline, the accounts of the fire crews and other evidence are all available below
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm


I obviously do not have an engineering background and stuff so cannot really comment much about the towers

but

Bikerman wrote:

I don't know much about Atta's passport being found. It strikes me as unlikely but not impossible. There were plenty of body parts found, as well as 'fragile' things like seat covers and life-vests.


Forget about the science of engineering stuff, the evidence pinpointing it to Bin Laden or some other group outside of the United States seems shabby.

Come on, passport of the man in question? It is like a needle in a giant haystack literally.

The rest of the evidence doesn't add up either.

Especially when it involves Bush: the Bush statements, which you believe is more due to his clumsy remarks rather than factual. Also the fact he gave evidence only with Dick Cheney at the 911 Commission Panel etc.

The videos of Bin Laden seem to be fudged. The fact that they don't have concrete proof that Bin Laden is behind 9/11 is another example:
Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2623 wrote:

“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"


And it is not hard to understand: How can some group in the desert in one of the least developed nations of the world, where TVs are banned, orchestrate the first attack on US national sovereignty since 1816? Apparently, they managed to hijack 4 planes on the same day, roughly the same time, each passing through security in a coordinated attack to precise US locations with NO involvement from within the US govt, or someone high in the United States?

No offence, we have been had, and I do not for a second buy this story. The evidence linking to men outside the US, and to linking it to Muslims in particular is a complete JOKE!
deanhills
ThePolemistis wrote:
And it is not hard to understand: How can some group in the desert in one of the least developed nations of the world, where TVs are banned, orchestrate the first attack on US national sovereignty since 1816? Apparently, they managed to hijack 4 planes on the same day, roughly the same time, each passing through security in a coordinated attack to precise US locations with NO involvement from within the US govt, or someone high in the United States?
That is EXACTLY what puzzled me then and is still puzzling me today. It was just too good to be true.
liljp617
They have money, political influence, and were very well educated. Again, if you want to make a bold claim, then back it up with bold evidence. So far, you have mere assumptions about things that might seem logical, but they are just that -- assumptions. If you cannot provide evidence for your assumptions, then you simply cannot scowl at the people who remain skeptical of your assumptions. If you want people to believe you, provide something to persuade them that isn't limited to the scope of your opinion. If you want people to believe you, you have to step out of the conspiracy zone, which is where we're at right now.

Now:

What government helped these groups attack the subway in Madrid? What government helped them attack the numerous locations in Mumbai? What government is helping them kill US soldiers (among other nation's soldiers) daily in Iraq and Afghanistan? What government helped them in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center? What government helped them carry out the attacks on 7/7 in London? On and on and on.

This isn't "some group." The strength of Al-Qaeda and it's associated organizations is not to be downplayed. The misconception is that these groups are made up exclusively of the uneducated masses and the lowest scum of the population in that region. It's plainly untrue -- these groups are made up of well-educated individuals who have plenty of money, who have strong motivations, who have political and religious influence in the region, and who understand how the global political game is played. They're not dense people who are so dumb they can't figure out how to breathe. To play them as such is nonsense.
Da Rossa
Quote:
That is EXACTLY what puzzled me then and is still puzzling me today. It was just too good to be true.


You see, gentlemen? Specially Bikerman! This is what I, unfortunately, feel. I say unfortunately because it is really hard to draw that conclusion, since I like the US a lot. I'm not saying, from the beginning, that the GVT, White House or Bush would be involved at all; what I said could be simply put as:

There was some level of internal involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

That's all.
liljp617
The moon is made of cheese and BBQ ribs.
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
There was some level of internal involvement in the 9/11 attacks.That's all.
I'm not so sure about that Da Rossa. It could be, but it could also be quite a number of other possibilities, such as maybe the armaments industry wanting a huge war so that they can make money, or Israel wanting continuing sympathy from the US Government, or a very sophisticated top-level secret organization that is completely anti-Muslim .... insider involvement from the Government would be way down at the bottom of my list of possibilities. Do you think a Government would be able to execute a mission like that as successfully, or kept the secret hidden for so long? If there were inside involvement, then it would be more on an individual basis of key people who have been coerced.
Bikerman
Any explanation will have 'unlikely' components, since unlikely things happen all the time. The simple fact is that all the conspiracy or 'alternative' explanations include elements which are far more unlikely than anything in the current official explanation.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Any explanation will have 'unlikely' components, since unlikely things happen all the time. The simple fact is that all the conspiracy or 'alternative' explanations include elements which are far more unlikely than anything in the current official explanation.
Agreed. I have not found any one explanation yet that makes complete sense to me including the one that says it was an exclusively run Muslim Mission. The Polemists earlier on gave a very good explanation that said it well for me:
ThePolemistis wrote:

How can some group in the desert in one of the least developed nations of the world, where TVs are banned, orchestrate the first attack on US national sovereignty since 1816? Apparently, they managed to hijack 4 planes on the same day, roughly the same time, each passing through security in a coordinated attack to precise US locations with NO involvement from within the US govt, or someone high in the United States?
A good question would probably also be why there have not been follow-ups of this mission? I have not seen this particular type synchronized terrorist acts copied anywhere else in the world. It was a one-off master piece.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
ThePolemistis wrote:

How can some group in the desert in one of the least developed nations of the world, where TVs are banned, orchestrate the first attack on US national sovereignty since 1816? Apparently, they managed to hijack 4 planes on the same day, roughly the same time, each passing through security in a coordinated attack to precise US locations with NO involvement from within the US govt, or someone high in the United States?
A good question would probably also be why there have not been follow-ups of this mission? I have not seen this particular type synchronized terrorist acts copied anywhere else in the world. It was a one-off master piece.


There have been multiple synchronized terrorist attacks across the world by Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaeda-influenced groups since 9/11. I mentioned Mumbai, London, and Madrid...tip of the iceberg. Yes, they didn't kill 3,000 people nor were they AS complex attacks. They also weren't planned for five years as 9/11 was, so one should not expect them to be as large-scale or complex as 9/11.

It's obviously not easy to execute such an extravagant plot, which is why even some aspects of 9/11 failed or didn't come to fruition as the attackers probably hoped. Similar outcomes have arisen from other terrorist plots -- they were uncovered before the attack could take place, were poorly executed, and so on.

It's even more difficult to spend resources and carefully plan large-scale attacks when you have hundreds of thousands of forces from perhaps the strongest military in the world (along with any of the allies that are still in support of the wars) constantly bombing and shooting at you. These groups are waging a "face-to-face" war daily in multiple nations; of course their ability to sit around calmly plotting complicated attacks on the US or European mainland will be hindered.
Da Rossa
Quote:
then it would be more on an individual basis of key people who have been coerced.


Most likely. I never said (sorry, I actually said so, back in 2006) that this was a major CIA plot.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
There have been multiple synchronized terrorist attacks across the world by Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaeda-influenced groups since 9/11. I mentioned Mumbai, London, and Madrid...tip of the iceberg. Yes, they didn't kill 3,000 people nor were they AS complex attacks. They also weren't planned for five years as 9/11 was, so one should not expect them to be as large-scale or complex as 9/11.
Not on this scale liljp617, not with this precision, and not using planes like this. How do you know it was a five-year plan? I am not disputing this, but if this were true, i.e. the five-year plan, why were there not other five-year plans on a revolving basis? They only had one five-year plan that was a genius of its time, surely there would have been many more of this kind available? And then it stopped completely, no more aggression at the United States where the United States can really hurt like it did in 2001? The CIA has become that good all of a sudden? After having been that "duped" in 2001? I don't know what the answer is, but there is a long list of unanswered questions for me.
Da Rossa wrote:
Quote:
then it would be more on an individual basis of key people who have been coerced.


Most likely. I never said (sorry, I actually said so, back in 2006) that this was a major CIA plot.
Neither did I. Nor did The Polemists. We just don't know what it was. Would be interesting to know who does?
Bikerman
Quote:
And then it stopped completely, no more aggression at the United States where the United States can really hurt like it did in 2001?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foiled_Islamic_terrorist_plots_in_the_post-9/11_United_States
Da Rossa
Oh My God I didn't know there have been 19 attempts after the 9/11 !! One day they will be successful again, I hope it takes long enough to happen. Sad
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
And then it stopped completely, no more aggression at the United States where the United States can really hurt like it did in 2001?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foiled_Islamic_terrorist_plots_in_the_post-9/11_United_States
Thanks for the link Bikerman. First of all, the foiled attempts listed are very Mickey Mouse attempts in comparison with the sophistication and enormity of the missions of 9/11. "The Polemists" specifically referred to the sophistication of the execution of those missions as well.

Secondly, why haven't the ones in 9/11 been discovered similarly?
Bikerman
Mickey mouse?
An attempt to blow-up the stock exchange? An attempt to bring-down Brooklyn Bridge? An attempted dirty bomb? That last one in particular would have made 9/11 look relatively minor.
Do you know what the effects of a dirty-bomb on a city would be? It would render large parts of that city basically uninhabitable - potentially for years. it wouldn't kill many, if any people directly, but who would live in a radioactive environment by choice. The disruption and cost would be astronomical.
ocalhoun
Part of the reason the more recent plots may seem more 'Mickey Mouse' is that they may have been discovered earlier, before being completely figured out... or they may have been forced to abandon more complex elements to reduce the chance of being caught.
Security was ramped up quite a lot after 9/11, and it's still much higher than it was.
Sure, some parts of it -- like TSA body scanners -- are useless, but other parts -- like the increased vigilance of law enforcement agencies -- are actually making it more difficult for terrorists to operate.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Part of the reason the more recent plots may seem more 'Mickey Mouse' is that they may have been discovered earlier, before being completely figured out... or they may have been forced to abandon more complex elements to reduce the chance of being caught.
Security was ramped up quite a lot after 9/11, and it's still much higher than it was.
Sure, some parts of it -- like TSA body scanners -- are useless, but other parts -- like the increased vigilance of law enforcement agencies -- are actually making it more difficult for terrorists to operate.
OK, so by that argument the 9/11 mission must also have been mickey mouse at one point, so why was it not found out? There must have been much stronger clues than the 19 ones that have been listed. Including the warning that an attack was imminent.
Bikerman
They tried a few years before and failed. They learned from the experience and succeeded the second time. I don't see why anyone finds that surprising. Hijacking a plane was not difficult up until fairly recently. The only part of the plan that required some degree of coordination and careful planning was synchronising the attacks - and they didn't do a great job of that.
People make it sound like it required criminal masterminds - it really didn't. Back in the 70s and 80s plane were being hijacked at a rate of about 1 per month (or more).
The only thing 'special' about this whole thing was the 'suicide' element. That is something the US has not had to deal with on home turf before - thus the systems and procedures were all based around the assumption that any terrorist would be trying to survive and walk away afterwards. When you are dealing with people who do not have that intent then the whole foundation of security policy is essentially useless.
As it happens we don't know how many attempted hijackings they planned. 4 seems too low to me. Why would they fly 2 into the twin towers but none into the White house and only 1 into the Pentagon? The twin towers would have been 4 or 5 on my list, at best, had I been planning such an attack. The White-house, Pentagon and Wall Street would all have rated much higher as targets. The Congress/House of Representatives would also have been a priority target.
The aim of any terrorist attack is to shock and terrify. The twin towers was spectacular, but a well coordinated suicide attack on the Whitehouse, Pentagon and Congress would have been far more devastating to public opinion methinks....if you can hit the centres of power/government then you send a very strong message that nobody is safe.

I think that they either weren't able to complete as many hijackings as planned (something we will probably never know), or their target selection (planning) was actually pretty amateurish, and I certainly don't buy into this growing myth that this was some super-organised criminal master-stroke.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
4 seems too low to me. Why would they fly 2 into the twin towers but none into the White house and only 1 into the Pentagon? The twin towers would have been 4 or 5 on my list, at best, had I been planning such an attack. The White-house, Pentagon and Wall Street would all have rated much higher as targets. The Congress/House of Representatives would also have been a priority target.

Well, my theory is that they chose targets that would have been easy to recognize from the air. Both the pentagon and the twin towers were very distinctive shapes, relatively easy to distinguish in a crowded city.
(That, and we don't know where one of the flights was headed.)

My guess as to why there were so few is that they had limited (suicidal) manpower. Each plane required more than one hijacker, and they may have had difficulty finding enough volunteers for anything larger-scale.
Bikerman
But the Whitehouse is a pretty easy taget isn't it? Just follow the river and turn right into it....

The Pentagon was a poor choice if they only were going for one impact. It is massively reinforced and it was always going to be the most 'resistant' target, If you look at the actual damage it was comparatively minor, and any structural engineer could have predicted as much. A hit on the Whitehouse, even if slightly off-target, would have had a much bigger psychological effect methinks....
Da Rossa
Quote:
The aim of any terrorist attack is to shock and terrify. The twin towers was spectacular, but a well coordinated suicide attack on the Whitehouse, Pentagon and Congress would have been far more devastating to public opinion methinks....if you can hit the centres of power/government then you send a very strong message that nobody is safe.

I think that they either weren't able to complete as many hijackings as planned (something we will probably never know), or their target selection (planning) was actually pretty amateurish, and I certainly don't buy into this growing myth that this was some super-organised criminal master-stroke.


The first part, imo, you got it right. There was the shocking element about the towers. But let's take a deep breath and think: could this really have been carried on in such a amateurish way? This could be many things but amateur. As people before said, they trained and orchestrated. By saying you doubt that this was some criminal mastermind jobs, it appears that you think that I said this was a Lex Luthor job, so that this thesis can fall into ridicule.

What I say is that there has been A LOT of work to accomplish that. An this, by definition, can't be amateur.

And, circumstantially, remembering that some higher-priority targets such as the Congress or WH were spared could enforce the idea that there was someone working from inside. Ok, im not repeating this, but see in this new perspective: many hackers have some kind of personal ethics and don't invade and destroy for fun, but breach systems to prove there are many, many flaws. But they, by ethics, wouldn't destroy the Pentagon db. But s/he could do something smaller such as leaking some documents to WikiLeaks, which could cause a major embarassment, but not effective destruction.

Thinking proportionally, the inner guy could be a lunatic and have thought like this: destroy the WTC, which will cause "some deaths", but the message that America is vulnerable will be sent, so that he could carry his agenda: force the government to begin taking real care of security.
Bikerman
I wasn't ridiculing at all. The point has been made - repeatedly - that this attack was completely different in scope, execution and training to any other attack. I say it wasn't.

When I use the word 'amateur' it is because I cannot think of a more suitable one. It is technically correct in any case, since a professional is one who works at it for a living, and these guys don't seem to fit that bill.
The only unusual 'planning' seems to me to have been the airline piloting lessons - and since hijackers don't normally intend to die, then it isn't surprising that previous hijackers have not thought it necessary to actually fly the plane. Even that was a botch job because neither of the two trainees managed to qualify, largely because their English was so poor - both of them ended up acting as 'muscle' rather than pilots. This was not the work of an extraordinary planner or an extraordinarily skillful/professional team. It was a bunch of Jihadists, trained in Afghanistan and Iraq, who had an overwhelming advantage over most previous terrorists (ie they fully intended to die, so didn't need to plan an 'exit strategy' which is the really tricky part) and managed to fly 3 out of 4 planes into a preselected target. As I said previously, the only major qualitative difference between this and previous terrorist attacks was the willingness of the terrorists to die - hence they could pick spectacular targets.
Da Rossa
You didn't get me right and that's my fault. I wasn't referring to the word 'amateur' regarding the 'ridicule'. What seemed to me as an attempt to throw my point of view into ridicule was remarking that "it would require a mastermind". (No, I'm not saying you're an a-hole for doing that, this is just things put objectively. Nothing to do with bad faith or evilness).

The amateurism is technically correct. And by definition they MUST had been amateurs, since their plot could not be repeated until they reached expertise! The professional really, as you pointed, can't fit this description.

What do you think about an inner guy? You didn't say anything that could discard the possibility. I can't prove either, but couldn't be anyone interested in doing so?
Bikerman
I don't see any need for an insider. I think the idea of an insider who didn't target congress etc because of personal involvement is crackers. The targets were chosen by Bin Laden, Attah, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. This is all old news and is fully documented in the commission report.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
But the Whitehouse is a pretty easy taget isn't it? Just follow the river and turn right into it....

The Pentagon was a poor choice if they only were going for one impact. It is massively reinforced and it was always going to be the most 'resistant' target, If you look at the actual damage it was comparatively minor, and any structural engineer could have predicted as much. A hit on the Whitehouse, even if slightly off-target, would have had a much bigger psychological effect methinks....
Good point. Which brings us to another anomaly for all the events that have been so masterfully orchestrated, why choose the Pentagon? For me it all depends on the objective. Was the intention really to destroy the Pentagon? For all the intelligence that had made their mission so successful in the overall picture I would have thought it logical that their intention had never been to destroy the Pentagon. Perhaps the act was just to create media attention to the vulnerability of the United States defense system and what better way to do it than a hit on the Pentagon?
Bikerman
Hitting the pentagon with a fully loaded Jet full of fuel and making a small whole in it is not my idea of good tactics. The damage was so relatively minor that many conspiracy theorists don't even accept that a plane hit it at all.

The reason for the Pentagon was simply that Ossama overruled the other suggested targets - the Bank Tower in LA, for example.
This is all in the commission report - why don't people read what is available before deciding it doesn't answer their questions...?
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
This is all in the commission report - why don't people read what is available before deciding it doesn't answer their questions...?
I don't believe everything I read Bikerman, and I know you don't either. How can people be such an authority on Ossama Bin Laden's specific motives anyway. He has never been apprehended, he comes from a completely alien culture, a language with different meanings and customs, and anything recorded has to be on the basis of hearsay as well with regard to his motives for anything.

Anyway, I'm more interested in that which is not in the Commission Report and may never be.

With regard to the plane that hit the Pentagon, it must have outraged the Pentagon. It certainly got plenty of media coverage. It looked good in political speeches for going to war against terrorism as well.

There are better speeches, but this is the easiest one I could track down on the Web as late as 2008:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/washington/12bush.html
Bikerman
How do you know what is in the report if you haven't even bothered to read it?

Of course I don't believe everything I read, but if I want information I go to the most authoritative source available to me - to professionals/academics who have spent considerable time and effort learning the facts, reading the reports, interviewing witnesses, accessing millions of pages of documents, and drawing considered, and informed conclusions, based on reasoning, experience and evidence, not laziness. supposition and ignorance.

If you can't be bothered to read the information which is freely available then I'm not going to spend time repeating it to answer questions that were answered months, or even years ago.
Da Rossa
Quote:
With regard to the plane that hit the Pentagon, it must have outraged the Pentagon. It certainly got plenty of media coverage. It looked good in political speeches for going to war against terrorism as well.


One more circumstancial evidence! Someone could have interest of Bush going on war against somewhere in the Middle East. Possibly because of the oil business. (Just 4fun, Watch 24, season 2).

Biker: trust us, both deanhills and I understand your point of view of giving more attention to the official and freely available information gathered by people who worked HARD, which could be the Comission Report! But what is in discussion is that the comission may had been biased upon the time the agents were assigned! This is what this topic is all about, right? Finding any possible inconsistency! So, lets not walk in circles.

What I'd like to ask you is whether you understand why I think not everything is perfectly explained! The ammount of circumstancial evidence is taking away my sleep, even they are not conclusive!
Bikerman
Finding inconsistency? How can you do that without having done at least a bare minimum of basic research? If you want to find something wrong with the official account do you not think you should start by reading what the official account actually is?
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
If you can't be bothered to read the information which is freely available then I'm not going to spend time repeating it to answer questions that were answered months, or even years ago.
As far as I know we did not ask a question. We expressed a point of view that the whole attack on 9/11 was just too perfectly orchestrated to ring completely true. If you tell us that that specific point is covered by the Commission's Report, then will you please show us where? And then I will read that portion of the report.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
If you can't be bothered to read the information which is freely available then I'm not going to spend time repeating it to answer questions that were answered months, or even years ago.
As far as I know we did not ask a question.
Really? I must be sleep-typing then...
Quote:
Was the intention really to destroy the Pentagon?
Quote:
Perhaps the act was just to create media attention to the vulnerability of the United States defense system and what better way to do it than a hit on the Pentagon?
Quote:
What do you think about an inner guy?
Quote:
Secondly, why haven't the ones in 9/11 been discovered similarly?
Quote:
Would be interesting to know who does?
Quote:
A good question would probably also be why there have not been follow-ups of this mission?
Dialogist
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
If you can't be bothered to read the information which is freely available then I'm not going to spend time repeating it to answer questions that were answered months, or even years ago.
As far as I know we did not ask a question. We expressed a point of view that the whole attack on 9/11 was just too perfectly orchestrated to ring completely true. If you tell us that that specific point is covered by the Commission's Report, then will you please show us where? And then I will read that portion of the report.


The piece Popular Mechanics did on debunking Loose Change was rather convincing if I do say so myself as I always suspected foul-play personally. My problem was never the hijacking of planes and prior coordination. This always seemed highly doable to me. My contention was that steel buildings do not, never have and never will fall from jet fuel in a pancake effect like they are being demolished with silos floor by floor, not to mention the third building over the road that nothing even crashed into. This is the unbelievable part for me. Of course the motive, why would a president kill that many of his own people? Rings true in opposition, but for Oil? He's killed a lot more of his own people in revenge and pursuit of that oil.
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
The piece Popular Mechanics did on debunking Loose Change was rather convincing if I do say so myself as I always suspected foul-play personally. My problem was never the hijacking of planes and prior coordination. This always seemed highly doable to me. My contention was that steel buildings do not, never have and never will fall from jet fuel in a pancake effect like they are being demolished with silos floor by floor, not to mention the third building over the road that nothing even crashed into. This is the unbelievable part for me. Of course the motive, why would a president kill that many of his own people? Rings true in opposition, but for Oil? He's killed a lot more of his own people in revenge and pursuit of that oil.
Agreed. Quite a large number of scientists and engineers pointed out the same thing. I thought a short report by a Chemist and Mechanical Engineer is easy reading and makes good sense to me:
9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible

Quote:
Numerous arguments have been presented that the Twin Towers at the World Trade Centre
could not have collapsed in the observed manner due to the cause asserted in the NIST report,
namely damage from plane impact and fire. The bases of these arguments include the rapidity
and symmetry of collapse, the adequacy of the steel supports, and the finding of incendiary
residues in the dust. It has also been argued that the initiating event in the official explanation,
the sudden collapse of one storey, could not have occurred because the steel was not hot
enough. This argument is based on data set out in the NIST report itself.

There is another argument, as will be described here, that is based simply on the behaviour of
hot steel under load. No calculations are involved and no knowledge of the temperature of the
steel is required.


This is the conclusion of the report:
Quote:
It is clear therefore that the upper section should only have moved down slowly and only
continued to do so if additional heat was supplied. A slow, protracted, and sagging collapse was
not observed however with either tower. As observed in videos of both tower collapses, the
upper sections suddenly start to fall and disintegrate. In the case of the south tower, initially a
lean of the upper section developed but within the first second this turned into a rapid collapse
with upper section disintegration, just as was observed with the north tower.

It appears therefore that the official concept of a free fall collapse of the upper portion
through the initiation storey, due to heat effects from fire, is a fantasy. If the temperature
did become high enough for collapse to occur it could not have happened in the observed
manner. In particular it could not have been sudden and thus could not have produced
the velocity, and hence the momentum and kinetic energy, upon which the official story
depends for the second stage of collapse. In contrast, all observations are in accord with
the use of explosives in a timed sequence.

The case that the NIST report must be corrected is confirmed. If this report is not corrected the
suspicion will remain that its purpose was not so much to inform as to deceive.


This is also a good essay by a civil engineer:
Why the towers fell: Two theories
By William Rice
ocalhoun
^Some good questions raised...

But how would anyone know in advance what floor to plant the explosives on?
To be convincing, they would have to be planted on almost exactly the floors that were hit by the plane... But how could you predict which floors would be hit? (Especially by amateur pilots.)
Dialogist
ocalhoun wrote:
^Some good questions raised...

But how would anyone know in advance what floor to plant the explosives on?
To be convincing, they would have to be planted on almost exactly the floors that were hit by the plane... But how could you predict which floors would be hit? (Especially by amateur pilots.)


The pilots didn't have to do a great deal. I think they probably even skipped the landing lessons. Any demolition expert would know how and where to place the explosives (and it does resemble their work a great deal). But it wasn't as you suggest, 'convincing' though and this is my main problem with it. We need scientific, mechanical, pyrotechnical and chemical experts on government grants to sell us an alibi that many without any of this knowledge (as the man is quoted as saying in the post above us) can determine is highly unlikely. The trade center towers are the only buildings that have ever collapsed from not just jet fuel, but also from the main thing they were designed to withstand.

In 1988, a 62 story skyscraper in Los Angeles burned for 3 hours and spread over 4 floors. It didn't collapse. In 1991, a 38 story skyscraper in Philadelphia, burned for more than 19 hours and spread over 8 floors. It didn't collapse. In 2004, a 56 story skyscraper in Venezuela, burned for over 17 hours and spread over 26 floors, eventually reaching the roof. It didn't collapse. In 2005, the steel and concrete 32 story Windsor Building in Madrid, burned for almost 24 hours, taking out the upper 10 stories of the building, the building itself didn't collapse.

On 9/11, 2001, two 110 story skyscrapers, burned for 56 minutes and 103 minutes respectively, over 4 floors, Before pancaking to the ground. Both towers collapsed in 30 seconds. The South Tower took 30 seconds to collapse and though it was hit last and burned the least, somehow collapsed first. If we are to ignore all the steel structures above built around the same time as the WTC, we can simply compare them to the B-52 that crashed into the Empire State Building at 200 mph in 1945:

http://www.evesmag.com/empirestatecrash.htm

And that it was a B-52 and a brick building? I still think something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
liljp617
Dialogist wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
If you can't be bothered to read the information which is freely available then I'm not going to spend time repeating it to answer questions that were answered months, or even years ago.
As far as I know we did not ask a question. We expressed a point of view that the whole attack on 9/11 was just too perfectly orchestrated to ring completely true. If you tell us that that specific point is covered by the Commission's Report, then will you please show us where? And then I will read that portion of the report.


The piece Popular Mechanics did on debunking Loose Change was rather convincing if I do say so myself as I always suspected foul-play personally. My problem was never the hijacking of planes and prior coordination. This always seemed highly doable to me. My contention was that steel buildings do not, never have and never will fall from jet fuel in a pancake effect like they are being demolished with silos floor by floor, not to mention the third building over the road that nothing even crashed into. This is the unbelievable part for me. Of course the motive, why would a president kill that many of his own people? Rings true in opposition, but for Oil? He's killed a lot more of his own people in revenge and pursuit of that oil.


Even that is questionable. Let's take a leap and assume the towers collapsed from some sort of demolition, rather than from the after-effects of a gigantic plane smashing into it and burning for a period of time. Fine. Now how in the world do we get from that, which is a leap in and of itself, to the government having something to do with this hypothetical detonation?

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols built a bomb in the back of a rented Ryder truck with 5,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and nitromethane.

The idea that the government is the only entity in the US capable of planting a bomb or some other sort of demolition materials is ludicrous. It wouldn't require an inside job by anyone, certainly not within government.
Dialogist
liljp617 wrote:


Even that is questionable. Let's take a leap and assume the towers collapsed from some sort of demolition, rather than from the after-effects of a gigantic plane smashing into it and burning for a period of time. Fine. Now how in the world do we get from that, which is a leap in and of itself, to the government having something to do with this hypothetical detonation?

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols built a bomb in the back of a rented Ryder truck with 5,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and nitromethane.

The idea that the government is the only entity in the US capable of planting a bomb or some other sort of demolition materials is ludicrous. It wouldn't require an inside job by anyone, certainly not within government.


Were are not entirely sure of the scale of these gigantic planes. Reports from the Pentagon crash had it anything from a fighter jet to a cruise missile. There's a good case for it being both. Experts say that the photo evidence of the plane debris found at the Pentagon site were impossible to be linked with that particular Boeing. The peculiar marked, military-looking drones with the strange additional fuselage under-carriers we see crash into the WTC do seem to look a lot smaller than your average Boeing 747, which in itself, is not a gigantic plane. The B-52 that ploughed into the side of the Empire State is a lot larger and also failed to fell that brick building. I think when questioning how a government role could be arrived at, you'd be failing to conceive that it would at least need prior knowledge and definitely some assistance is required on its part- in supplying the demolition of a building that lapsed intelligence, blinkered homeland security and 4 errant planes would be ready to crash into at all. You can hardly compare the unibomber to 9/11. 9/11 was a major operation apparently aimed at the center of all world trade and the military base of the biggest world super power. They are not the only entity capable of hijacking, you're right, but they are the only body with this kind of air, land, security, military and media control. But they didn't stop at the execution of such a massive operation. No, the media did the real conspiracy. To a lot of patriotic Americans, it is ludicrous to point the finger at the only ones capable. I guess you'd need a Patriot Act passed to vilify those who find this official verdict of some cartoon ali baba on his magic carpet doing it all unaided a little bit more ludicrous? But yes, through all of that explosion, fire, destruction, steel-melting-heat, rubble, debris and 120 story urban fire and brimstone apocalypse, even though the black-box was completely evaporated, they did manage to find Mohammed Atta's passport, just lying there, on the street. It probably fell out of his pocket? Go back to bed America. We have figured it all out. Here's Hank with the weather.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Finding inconsistency? How can you do that without having done at least a bare minimum of basic research? If you want to find something wrong with the official account do you not think you should start by reading what the official account actually is?

I scanned through the Commission Report, also read reviews on the Report and found that in addition to this 585 page report that there is also an earlier Congressional Report of 800 pages plus on the role of the intelligence organizations before and during the attacks. There are virtually thousands of pages of research that can be waded through. I read mostly summaries and have not found anything that has changed my mind, more the opposite when I was reading essays by engineers and scientists. To me there is no doubt that the Government is withholding information. I still don't have an answer as to who and why has been responsible. There is no conclusive proof that Ossama Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks. Even after all of this time. I don't believe the Government is responsible either, although there could have been inside help from individuals. I also wonder at supposedly professional terrorists leaving their trail all over flight simulation training centres, etc. etc. almost as though "that evidence" needed to have been discovered. So agree with Dialogist that all this abundance in identification papers is just too good to be true. Why is so much unknown, but the 19 terrorists clearly identified within hours of the explosions?

An editorial in the New York Times Arts section referred to the Commission Report as nice prose, but seriously lacking in substance. The article appeared immediately after the release of the Report, and is worthwhile reading. It made the point that the findings had already been heavily publicized even before the report was released as well as much of the findings were made "in hindsight". It asks why it took so long for the enquiry to happen, but mostly the criticism is that some of the burning questions have not been investigated. Including the third building that had "imploded" in exactly the same way as the South and North Towers had, but had not been struck by an airplane.

If Da Rossa hasn't got much time to read any of the reports, then the YouTube presentations below cover most of the "burning" questions by engineers, fire management experts and scientists that have not been answered by the Commission Report. I have never looked at 9 11 YouTube presentations before, as I always assumed they would be about conspiracies. I started with PBS, and then discovered quite a number of YouTube shows that are asking questions that have not been answered by the Commission Report. The one below is quite recent (2008) and is a documentary in 11 parts by an Italian Production Company:


[...]

There is also one by Russia Today - 20 minutes:
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
I scanned through the Commission Report, also read reviews on the Report and found that in addition to this 585 page report that there is also an earlier Congressional Report of 800 pages plus on the role of the intelligence organizations before and during the attacks.

Really?....
Quote:
There is no conclusive proof that Ossama Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks.

So, you didn't find the reports evidence on this 'conclusive'? Conclusive is a weasel word since nothing can be proved 'conclusively'. It can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, however, and has been.
Sections 5 and 7 of the report describe the detailed evidence of Bin Laden's involvement- I presume you find that unconvincing? Or maybe you 'scanned' past those bits?

Osama himself admitted his role in his 2004 video. I presume you think that he was lying? (Which is strange because he had spent the previous 3 years denying his involvement, so one wonders why he would now suddenly decide to reverse himself and claim responsibility if it were untrue).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video

And when he said
Quote:
I am the one in charge of the nineteen brothers … I was responsible for entrusting the nineteen brothers …
that would be more lies ?
And the video aired by Al Zareera in 2006 (which shows him with 2 of the 9/11 hijackers, preparing for the attack)? Was that clever editing?
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/09/07/al-qaeda-tape.html
ocalhoun
Dialogist wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
^Some good questions raised...

But how would anyone know in advance what floor to plant the explosives on?
To be convincing, they would have to be planted on almost exactly the floors that were hit by the plane... But how could you predict which floors would be hit? (Especially by amateur pilots.)


The pilots didn't have to do a great deal. I think they probably even skipped the landing lessons. Any demolition expert would know how and where to place the explosives (and it does resemble their work a great deal).

But how would any demolition expert know which floors the planes would hit?
In order to look realistic at all, the demolition would have to start on a floor very near where the plane hit.
Quote:
But it wasn't as you suggest, 'convincing' though and this is my main problem with it. We need scientific, mechanical, pyrotechnical and chemical experts on government grants to sell us an alibi that many without any of this knowledge (as the man is quoted as saying in the post above us) can determine is highly unlikely. The trade center towers are the only buildings that have ever collapsed from not just jet fuel, but also from the main thing they were designed to withstand.

In 1988, a 62 story skyscraper in Los Angeles burned for 3 hours and spread over 4 floors. It didn't collapse. In 1991, a 38 story skyscraper in Philadelphia, burned for more than 19 hours and spread over 8 floors. It didn't collapse. In 2004, a 56 story skyscraper in Venezuela, burned for over 17 hours and spread over 26 floors, eventually reaching the roof. It didn't collapse. In 2005, the steel and concrete 32 story Windsor Building in Madrid, burned for almost 24 hours, taking out the upper 10 stories of the building, the building itself didn't collapse.

On 9/11, 2001, two 110 story skyscrapers, burned for 56 minutes and 103 minutes respectively, over 4 floors, Before pancaking to the ground. Both towers collapsed in 30 seconds. The South Tower took 30 seconds to collapse and though it was hit last and burned the least, somehow collapsed first.

Might I point out the difference between the two?
Jet fuel. -- It tends to make things burn hotter.
(And while the towers were designed to be fire resistant, they were designed to be resistant against ordinary building fire temperatures, not jet fuel fire temperatures.)
Quote:

If we are to ignore all the steel structures above built around the same time as the WTC, we can simply compare them to the B-52 that crashed into the Empire State Building at 200 mph in 1945:

http://www.evesmag.com/empirestatecrash.htm

And that it was a B-52 and a brick building? I still think something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

I'm familiar with the incident of the B-25 and the Empire State Building.
So familiar, in fact, that it was the first thing I thought of when I first saw on the news that a plane had hit the WTC.

Mind if I point out a few differences?
A- The plane crashed on landing approach, not shortly after take off. It would have been mostly empty of fuel, not full like the 9/11 planes.
B- That was a prop plane, not a jet. It would have been using aviation gasoline, not jet fuel. Gas is easier to ignite than jet fuel, but jet fuel burns hotter.
C- The two buildings were no doubt constructed much differently.
D- A B-25 holds (at maximum) 670 gallons of fuel. A modern airliner holds (at maximum) 57,285 gallons of fuel. (This may make a slight difference in the intensity of the different fires. ^.^)
Dialogist
ocalhoun wrote:

D- A B-25 holds (at maximum) 670 gallons of fuel. A modern airliner holds (at maximum) 57,285 gallons of fuel. (This may make a slight difference in the intensity of the different fires. ^.^)


What you say is true and you have valid points, however you're forgetting the third building. Building 7. The 47-story office tower at the edge of the World Trade Center which was felled by fires a lot less intense than those of the Empire State, which by the way, spread to the roof and burned for 3 hours longer and also caused a major flash fire down the elevator shaft almost condemning the whole building, however, never for one minute threatened to collapse it, floor by floor. Let's say you have explosives at all of the weakest points of the tower and detonate them all simultaneously, how exactly is it going to look any different - a building collapsing on itself within the time frame of 30 seconds?

On the Loose Change video, Dylan Avery says if you dropped a basketball from the top of the building at the instance of collapse, it would have reached the floor after the roof. And also why didn't this extreme steel liquidizing heat incinerate the pilots leather passport? Steven Wright had an old truism that went something like, "You know the plane's black box? Why don't they make the whole plane out of that stuff?" And it's funny but it's funnier when you accept that the black box was disintegrated too in this case. So maybe the blast was more intense than you calculated? And maybe they should have made the plane and the World Trade Center out of Muhammed Atta's passport and just let them battle it out. Smile

What we essentially have here is 3 buildings felled from fire (one from rupture fire it 'seems' conveniently storing a load of investigations into fraudulent world trading) setting a precedent of the only high rise buildings that ever been felled from fire ever, but I do appreciate your points about the differences between those two incidents.
deanhills
@Bikerman. The Commission Report failed to answer a number of questions, and even when people voiced those questions out loudly, these were never followed up on in a follow-up investigation. People were not allowed to debate on the contents of the report, and families are still as much in the dark as they had been before the report appeared. They still don't know who had ultimately been responsible for the attacks.

For example, I did not know that there had been survivors after the attack on the South Tower. There were allegedly people who had been above the point of impact, who had made their way past the damaged areas down to the ground floor. They maintain that the structure below the point of impact had been in perfect shape, and that even the electricity and air conditioning systems had been in working order. Why was this not investigated, and then if this were untrue, sorted out as untrue? Ditto the third building that went down. Some scientists maintain that the third building could not have gone down without demolition charges attached to it. So why not deal with that theory, and disprove it in the report? People want to know how the one terrorist's passport could have been found in pristine condition, whereas everything else had been burnt beyond recognition.

The Commission Report is not the only source of information as in lieu of a thorough investigation, others have invested time and money to do some of the investigation themselves. There are some bogus investigations that focus on conspiracy theories only, but there are other investigations that came up with very solid questions that beg for answers. I think they deserve to be investigated and answered.

I think the more literature I read on the topic, the more convinced I am that none of the people involved in putting the material together really know who was responsible. They are trying their best to look for answers, but cannot find the answers. Part of the reason for this is that the Commission Enquiry had not been thorough enough, and most of what went in the report went in with the presupposition that El Qaeda had been responsible for the attacks. Even that theory has a lot of holes in it. Like the list of 19 terrorists, of which it has proven that some of them are still alive and were outside the United States at the time of the attacks.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:

For example, I did not know that there had been survivors after the attack on the South Tower. There were allegedly people who had been above the point of impact, who had made their way past the damaged areas down to the ground floor.

Each building had several stairways. In the other tower, all the stairways were blocked by debris and/or fire, but in the tower you mention, one (only one) of the stairways was still clear, and some people used it.

Dialogist wrote:

What you say is true and you have valid points, however you're forgetting the third building. Building 7. The 47-story office tower at the edge of the World Trade Center which was felled by fires a lot less intense than those of the Empire State, which by the way, spread to the roof and burned for 3 hours longer and also caused a major flash fire down the elevator shaft almost condemning the whole building, however, never for one minute threatened to collapse it, floor by floor.

I don't know much about this building 7. I would need to research it thoroughly, and I've already done more researching than I want to while discussing it with you.
Quote:

Let's say you have explosives at all of the weakest points of the tower and detonate them all simultaneously, how exactly is it going to look any different - a building collapsing on itself within the time frame of 30 seconds?

The floors didn't detonate simultaneously though... Only a select few gave way, bringing the upper floors crashing down on the lower floors... But until the upper and lower sections collided, they were both intact.

So, your case is that explosives were on every floor then, hm?
Then why did the lower floors wait to collapse until the upper floors hit them? If all the floors were destroyed at the same time, the building should have collapsed as a whole, with the bottom-most floors being destroyed first, then each next floor as it struck the ground.
Just like in this video of a real controlled demolition:

Notice how the bottom floors are destroyed first, while the top floors fall mostly intact.
Floors in the middle of the building are not the first ones destroyed.
Quote:

On the Loose Change video, Dylan Avery says if you dropped a basketball from the top of the building at the instance of collapse, it would have reached the floor after the roof.

Concrete and steel tends to fall faster than inflated rubber.
(It's the whole 'weight vs. air resistance' thing.)
Quote:
And also why didn't this extreme steel liquidizing heat incinerate the pilots leather passport?

That I don't know. Perhaps it was thrown clear before the fire even started. Or perhaps it was planted evidence.
Quote:
Steven Wright had an old truism that went something like, "You know the plane's black box? Why don't they make the whole plane out of that stuff?"

They don't make the whole pane out of that stuff because if they did, the plane would be too heavy to fly.
Quote:
And it's funny but it's funnier when you accept that the black box was disintegrated too in this case. So maybe the blast was more intense than you calculated? And maybe they should have made the plane and the World Trade Center out of Muhammed Atta's passport and just let them battle it out. Smile

So... What's your theory on how the plane's armored black box was destroyed, while the fragile passport (and other fragile debris) survived?
Dialogist
ocalhoun wrote:

So, your case is that explosives were on every floor then, hm?


It wasn't my theory that they had bombs on every floor, I used that as an extreme example to ask the question of 'how would it look any different'? even in that extreme case, what with your ''weight vs. air resistance' thing, plus the added kinetic to potential energy of all kinds of explosions going off above?

That building is what? 50 stories? And doesn't have a plane stuck in the side and explosives blowing out of the top 10 to 20 floors? The singular explosives required to weaken the corners of the building wouldn't need to be as intense as the upper blast. In fact the only in-tact areas of the tower would be similar to the size of this one (had it been blown from the bottom like this one, like they usually are, like the WTC looked just like it was too - like Bin Laden apparently tried to do in 1992? or 1993? With a bomb in the basement)? Hmm.

My theory is that the black box was never destroyed. My theory is that it was either a) not there to begin with (the modified underside of the plane/drone shows it had already been tampered with) or more likely b) seized and taken and placed in that warehouse at the end of the Indiana Jones movie where they also keep the Kennedy files and yes I agree, they more than probably did plant that passport. Especially with Atta's father saying he spoke to him 2 days after the event. I do attempt to use humor here, and probably also fail, but I'm sure you can appreciate what I believe actually transpired.

You don't need to research this stuff really. It speaks for itself to me. I would however point out that "weight vs resistance" of a full supported, fixed steel building designed to withstand this kind of thing of that mass, size and height vs a basketball proves it was blown. From the bottom, too, as it turns out.
ocalhoun
Dialogist wrote:

It wasn't my theory that they had bombs on every floor, I used that as an extreme example to ask the question of 'how would it look any different'?

I think I already answered that. A demolition would look different in that the bottom floors would disintegrate before the top floors hit them, which was not the case in the WTC.
Quote:

You don't need to research this stuff really. It speaks for itself to me.

Yes, unless you were there watching it (which I admit, is a possibility) you do need to research it in order to find out what happened.
Quote:
I would however point out that "weight vs resistance" of a full supported, fixed steel building designed to withstand this kind of thing of that mass, size and height vs a basketball proves it was blown.

It was designed to withstand the weight of the floors above, yes. But it was not designed to withstand an impact from the floors above in motion.
Try an experiment:
1: Place your hand on a table.
2: Gently place a brick on your hand.
(No problem right? Your hand supports the weight of the brick just fine.)
3: Now, pick up the brick, and drop it on your hand from a height of only 1 foot.
(Hurts, doesn't it?)
Hopefully, this will demonstrate for you the difference between holding up a steady weight and stopping one that is falling. The one that is falling puts a LOT more stress on your hand, doesn't it?
Likewise, the upper floors falling put a lot more stress on the lower ones than when they were simply sitting there.
Quote:
From the bottom, too, as it turns out.

Wait? What?
Have you ever seen a video of the towers collapsing?
The collapse obviously begins in the middle, not at the bottom.
Dialogist
ocalhoun wrote:

the bottom floors would disintegrate before the top floors hit them, which was not the case in the WTC.


Who told you that?

Quote:

Yes, unless you were there watching it (which I admit, is a possibility) you do need to research it in order to find out what happened.


I'm saying that you don't need to research that planes don't bring down 120 story steel skyscrapers, I've already graciously done that for you. And that you don't need to research that controlled demolitions do produce an almost exact replica of the fall of the WTC, with a pyroclastic flow, explosive discharge and waves, and not only plumage, projectiles, and outward trajectory, also lack of tilt/rotation synonymous with controlled demolitions. You don't need to research any of this stuff, to determine that planes crashing into the top of 120 story steel skyscraper do not (and never have) had this effect - is all I am suggesting. I have researched both sides quite passively and I'm still completely dissatisfied with the official report. Popular Mechanics did a better job than the government for example but I still want answers to questions that have not even been asked.

Quote:

It was designed to withstand the weight of the floors above, yes. But it was not designed to withstand an impact from the floors above in motion.


It was designed specifically to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The official report tells us that the intense heat overrides this and the specially rigid tube design of tightly packed steel columns and floor trusses just gave way to this. I beg to differ. I content that they gave way to themselves and those above once their weakest points were blown out at strategic points throughout the building. You say middle, I say bottom-down.

Quote:

Try an experiment:
1: Place your hand on a table.
2: Gently place a brick on your hand.
(No problem right? Your hand supports the weight of the brick just fine.)
3: Now, pick up the brick, and drop it on your hand from a height of only 1 foot.
(Hurts, doesn't it?)
Hopefully, this will demonstrate for you the difference between holding up a steady weight and stopping one that is falling. The one that is falling puts a LOT more stress on your hand, doesn't it?
Likewise, the upper floors falling put a lot more stress on the lower ones than when they were simply sitting there.


It's not the right experiment though. The right experiment would be duct taping 120 hands, one on top of the other, to the one below it, right down the pile and then super-gluing and duct taping the bottom hand to the table and wrapping rope around them all for good measure and then dropping a peanut from the top and burning the top hand with a cigarette lighter to see if the top hand beats it to the surface of the table.

Quote:

Have you ever seen a video of the towers collapsing?
The collapse obviously begins in the middle, not at the bottom.


Like I say, you say middle, I see 120 story building blowing out a few floors above that church. That's the bottom to me. It goes down a few floors in the basement so blowing it out at street level would be pointless anyway. The hit it just perfect, by your videos, and mine:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/newsouth/newsouth.htm

Except those^ videos show a little more, right?
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
It was designed specifically to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The official report tells us that the intense heat overrides this and the specially rigid tube design of tightly packed steel columns and floor trusses just gave way to this. I beg to differ. I content that they gave way to themselves and those above once their weakest points were blown out at strategic points throughout the building. You say middle, I say bottom-down.
Apparently the buildings were designed to withstand more than one Boeing. Refer the YouTube presentation below:


And while we are on this topic, how was it possible for these planes to have reached the buildings without being intercepted by the Military? Surely in any other country of the world, once they know a plane is being hijacked, the jet fighters would be out almost instantly. They missed one plane, they missed a second plane and a third plane AND a fourth plane?
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
@Bikerman. The Commission Report failed to answer a number of questions, and even when people voiced those questions out loudly, these were never followed up on in a follow-up investigation. People were not allowed to debate on the contents of the report, and families are still as much in the dark as they had been before the report appeared. They still don't know who had ultimately been responsible for the attacks.
So you maintain your position that Bin Laden was lying when he said he was responsible and all the evidence in the report is wrong?
Quote:
For example, I did not know that there had been survivors after the attack on the South Tower. There were allegedly people who had been above the point of impact, who had made their way past the damaged areas down to the ground floor. They maintain that the structure below the point of impact had been in perfect shape, and that even the electricity and air conditioning systems had been in working order.
Untrue. 4 people survived from above the impact level and Brian Clarke testified on behalf of two of them (himself and Stanley Praimnath).
Quote:
Some scientists maintain that the third building could not have gone down without demolition charges attached to it.
Two scientists that I am aware of - Steve Jones and Frank Legge - a Chemist. Scientists, as a group, contain conspiracy theorists and wakko's just like most groups. The fact is that the overwhelming opinion of scientists is that Jones & Legge are simply wrong.
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20070809030224/http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-6index.htm
http://sydney.edu.au/engineering/civil/wtc.shtml
Quote:
So why not deal with that theory, and disprove it in the report?
It is dealt with in the NIST report.
The simple fact is that you can never deal with all the wakky theories that people will propose - and even the ones that ARE dealt with are re-iterated by conspiracy theorists as if they hadn't been.
The evidence that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 is overwhelming - as documented in my previous posting - yet you continue to post that there is some doubt.
Quote:
Like the list of 19 terrorists, of which it has proven that some of them are still alive and were outside the United States at the time of the attacks.
Another example where the lie has already been refuted, yet is repeated as if it hadn't been.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Hijackers_still_alive
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
So you maintain your position that Bin Laden was lying when he said he was responsible and all the evidence in the report is wrong?
I have never presented a position that he was lying, those are entirely your words. I most certainly did not say Bin Laden was lying. And I'm most definitely not an expert on the truth either (neither are you for that matter). I do think however that there is a good chance that that video of his could have been produced by people other than him, and Bin Laden being used as an easy scape goat. Everything we have learned about Bin Laden has been via the Government and the Media. The fact that the video was introduced and presented by the parties in whose interest it was to have someone to blame the attacks on, also was suspect.
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
For example, I did not know that there had been survivors after the attack on the South Tower. There were allegedly people who had been above the point of impact, who had made their way past the damaged areas down to the ground floor. They maintain that the structure below the point of impact had been in perfect shape, and that even the electricity and air conditioning systems had been in working order.
Untrue. 4 people survived from above the impact level and Brian Clarke testified on behalf of two of them (himself and Stanley Praimnath).
I don't understand. You say it is untrue, and then you say that there have been survivors. Which is which?
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Some scientists maintain that the third building could not have gone down without demolition charges attached to it.
The fact is that the overwhelming opinion of scientists is that Jones & Legge are simply wrong.
I can dig up as many links as you can of those who say differently. Again, I'm not saying one is right and the other one is wrong. I just say that everything is possible, and I don't trust the version that the Government wants everyone to believe. There are too many unanswered questions. If there were just one or two questions, great, but when one gets to 100 questions, then there is something that is not quite right somewhere.
Bikerman wrote:
The simple fact is that you can never deal with all the wakky theories that people will propose - and even the ones that ARE dealt with are re-iterated by conspiracy theorists as if they hadn't been.
There are definitely wakky theories, but there are also very sound questions by highly intelligent individuals including engineers, scientists and physicists.
Bikerman wrote:
The evidence that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 is overwhelming - as documented in my previous posting - yet you continue to post that there is some doubt.
I do have doubt. There was just too much of Ossama Bin Laden everywhere and too little of him to substantiate all the videos. The Video below discusses the Bin Laden Video as well as El Qaeda:

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Like the list of 19 terrorists, of which it has proven that some of them are still alive and were outside the United States at the time of the attacks.
Another example where the lie has already been refuted, yet is repeated as if it hadn't been.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Hijackers_still_alive
Right, and I could also cite a number of sources who claim differently. And again I don't say they are right or wrong, just that there are enough questions to put the Government version of what had happened in question.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
So you maintain your position that Bin Laden was lying when he said he was responsible and all the evidence in the report is wrong?
I have never presented a position that he was lying, those are entirely your words. I most certainly did not say Bin Laden was lying. And I'm most definitely not an expert on the truth either (neither are you for that matter). I do think however that there is a good chance that that video of his could have been produced by people other than him, and Bin Laden being used as an easy scape goat. Everything we have learned about Bin Laden has been via the Government and the Media. The fact that the video was introduced and presented by the parties in whose interest it was to have someone to blame the attacks on, also was suspect.
The video was 'introduced' by Al Jazeera - the same source for all the Bin Laden videos. So are you now saying that Al-Jazeera are complicit in this conspiracy as well?
If you say that you don't believe Bin Laden was responsible then you ARE saying that he is a liar, since HE SAYS THAT HE WAS.
Quote:
I don't understand. You say it is untrue, and then you say that there have been survivors. Which is which?
I say it is untrue that they were not investigated and untrue that they said the structure was in 'perfect shape'.
Quote:
I can dig up as many links as you can of those who say differently.
And I say you can't. Not from reputable sources. Anyone can dig-up links from bloggers and others who don't have a clue. Try providing something reputable and authoritative.
Quote:
Again, I'm not saying one is right and the other one is wrong. I just say that everything is possible, and I don't trust the version that the Government wants everyone to believe. There are too many unanswered questions. If there were just one or two questions, great, but when one gets to 100 questions, then there is something that is not quite right somewhere.
Ad-populum fallacy/argument from personal incredulity. It is silly to say that just because some people question an explanation there must be something amiss with the explanation.
Quote:
There are definitely wakky theories, but there are also very sound questions by highly intelligent individuals including engineers, scientists and physicists.
As I said, 2 scientists are all I know about - if you are saying there are more then provide the data.
Quote:
I do have doubt. There was just too much of Ossama Bin Laden everywhere and too little of him to substantiate all the videos. The Video below discusses the Bin Laden Video as well as El Qaeda:
You really think that a youtube video should be taken seriously? Too much of Bin Laden? He has released a handful of videos in a decade. How is that 'too much'?
Quote:
Right, and I could also cite a number of sources who claim differently.
I don't believe it - not reputable sources. Posting videos from youtube is not the same as supplying credible, reputable sources.
ocalhoun
Dialogist wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:

the bottom floors would disintegrate before the top floors hit them, which was not the case in the WTC.


Who told you that?

I'm usually pretty open-minded about conspiracy theories... I'm a firm believer that there was something fishy about the Oklahoma City bombing, for example.
And that small group of people who control the entire world? They're real, though they're not all that they're cracked up to be.

But, the crazy here is getting to be too much even for me... I think I'll excuse myself now.
Dialogist
ocalhoun wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:

the bottom floors would disintegrate before the top floors hit them, which was not the case in the WTC.


Who told you that?

I'm usually pretty open-minded about conspiracy theories... I'm a firm believer that there was something fishy about the Oklahoma City bombing, for example.
And that small group of people who control the entire world? They're real, though they're not all that they're cracked up to be.

But, the crazy here is getting to be too much even for me... I think I'll excuse myself now.


No, I firmly agree. I always treat conspiracy theories as ridiculous until proven otherwise, but I do always give them a fair hearing (depending on what's being proposed) because like you inferred about the extremely over-exaggerated 'illuminati' type Bilderberg groups, we know these groups do exist and have some great influence, naturally, from the prominently powerful members we know that they have. But I too have to take a step back when confronted with most absurdities. I eventually measure all conspiracy theories by these 3 factors: Motive, Means and Gain. And always: is the official verdict more ridiculous than the fox mulder version?
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
The video was 'introduced' by Al Jazeera - the same source for all the Bin Laden videos. So are you now saying that Al-Jazeera are complicit in this conspiracy as well?
You keep doing this. When did I EVER refer to a conspiracy? I am saying there are unanswered questions. I have said that a number of times. So have others.
Bikerman wrote:
If you say that you don't believe Bin Laden was responsible then you ARE saying that he is a liar, since HE SAYS THAT HE WAS.
Are you saying that I believe that Bin Laden is a liar? If that is correct, then again your words Bikerman. And if you read my posting properly I was saying that it was possible that that video could have been doctored. I also attached a YouTube presentation in which the Video of Ossama Bin Laden was discussed. Did you have a look at it?
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
I don't understand. You say it is untrue, and then you say that there have been survivors. Which is which?
I say it is untrue that they were not investigated and untrue that they said the structure was in 'perfect shape'.
OK, it was not in perfect shape, but it was in a good enough state for those people to have survived.
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
I can dig up as many links as you can of those who say differently.
And I say you can't. Not from reputable sources. Anyone can dig-up links from bloggers and others who don't have a clue. Try providing something reputable and authoritative.
OK, so those who have questions or different points of view are bogus? Now that has to be a fallacy in its own right.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
The video was 'introduced' by Al Jazeera - the same source for all the Bin Laden videos. So are you now saying that Al-Jazeera are complicit in this conspiracy as well?
You keep doing this. When did I EVER refer to a conspiracy? I am saying there are unanswered questions. I have said that a number of times. So have others.
You refer to conspiracy implicitly many times. For example:
Quote:
the more convinced I am that none of the people involved in putting the material together really know who was responsible.
That means that the FBI and the authors of the Commission report have deliberately lied, since they both say they are quite clear who was responsible. Since they both say the same thing then the only conclusion, if they are wrong, is that they have conspired to fabricate the story.
Quote:
I do think however that there is a good chance that that video of his could have been produced by people other than him, and Bin Laden being used as an easy scape goat.
Again this implies a widespread conspiracy since FBI experts have verified that the videos ARE of Bin Laden and have not been significantly doctored. They are therefore lying.
Quote:
The fact that the video was introduced and presented by the parties in whose interest it was to have someone to blame the attacks on, also was suspect.
Namely the Government, Al Jazeera and the FBI. If the videos are false there must be a conspiracy to present them as real.
Quote:
We expressed a point of view that the whole attack on 9/11 was just too perfectly orchestrated to ring completely true.
ergo it must have been a conspiracy.
Quote:
I thought a short report by a Chemist and Mechanical Engineer is easy reading and makes good sense to me:
Since the report asserts that the collapse of the towers was deliberate and caused by explosives, that requires a HUGE conspiracy.
Quote:
To me there is no doubt that the Government is withholding information.
The only way that would be possible is if members of the executive have authorised a cover-up and members of the FBI, NSA, CIA and others are going along with it. It would also require the Commission to be either complicit, or to have been presented with a lot of fake evidence.
Quote:
Are you saying that I believe that Bin Laden is a liar? If that is correct, then again your words Bikerman. And if you read my posting properly I was saying that it was possible that that video could have been doctored. I also attached a YouTube presentation in which the Video of Ossama Bin Laden was discussed. Did you have a look at it?
Yes. It consisted of a history professor, 3 journalists and an MEP with absolutely nothing concrete and a lot of speculation. If you want to know whether a video is genuine, you ask a renowned expert in the field. If that expert says 'yes, it is absolutely genuine, no doubt' then you are going to need to show me equally credible evidence that it is not. Youtube doesn't cut it.

http://bikerman.co.uk/media/video/osama.wmv

Bin Laden claims responsibility in the 2004 video. The FBI say it is genuine. The leading experts in the field of video analysis agree. I believe them.

Quote:
OK, it was not in perfect shape, but it was in a good enough state for those people to have survived.
Which is exactly what one expects from the damage that was reported. You also said that they had not been investigated - that is also untrue.
Quote:
OK, so those who have questions or different points of view are bogus? Now that has to be a fallacy in its own right.
The point of view has nothing to do with it. Testability, and the qualifications, experience and expertise of those testing/claiming are what determines whether an account should be taken seriously. Anyone can claim anything is a conspiracy and only a fool would take them seriously unless they have the evidence.

This thread is a good example. If people took you at face value then we have:
Quote:
There were allegedly people who had been above the point of impact, who had made their way past the damaged areas down to the ground floor. They maintain that the structure below the point of impact had been in perfect shape, and that even the electricity and air conditioning systems had been in working order. Why was this not investigated, and then if this were untrue, sorted out as untrue?
First claim false and it WAS investigated.
Quote:
Like the list of 19 terrorists, of which it has proven that some of them are still alive and were outside the United States at the time of the attacks.
Untrue.
Quote:
They say there were four airplanes, but we only have record of three. Two at the WTC and one at Pennsylvania. The one alleged to have crashed in the pentagon have left absolutely no trace. Not a airplane tail, wing, a single piece
Completely untrue.
Quote:
The special comission to investigate the attack closed the reports prematurely.
Untrue.
Quote:
Cutting objects and wires to build that fake bomb could not have been let by the airport scanners in three different flights
Red herring.
Quote:
A spray deodorant, used to make difficult the access to the cockpit wouldn't be allowed in the hand luggage either
Untrue/misleading. Hand-luggage was not usually searched.
Quote:
A flight manual written in arabic was found very quickly, in the next day, inside a car
Misleading. The car was parked in the Airport car park and was registered to one of the suspects.
Quote:
And then it stopped completely, no more aggression at the United States where the United States can really hurt like it did in 2001?
Untrue.

Soi we already have a mish-mash of untruths, half-truths and misleading statements..

That is exactly how the conspiracy mill keeps turning.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
The video was 'introduced' by Al Jazeera - the same source for all the Bin Laden videos. So are you now saying that Al-Jazeera are complicit in this conspiracy as well?
You keep doing this. When did I EVER refer to a conspiracy? I am saying there are unanswered questions. I have said that a number of times. So have others.
You refer to conspiracy implicitly many times. For example:
Quote:
the more convinced I am that none of the people involved in putting the material together really know who was responsible.
There is no reference to conspiracy in this statement. You're the one using it all the time. A typical tactic of you Bikerman so that when people read your postings and not mine, they will obviously come to the wrong conclusion. Deanhills believe there has been a conspiracy!

I seem to recall when I had just joined this Forum in 2008 that you often referred to Government trying to instill fear in its people as an end to justify a war? I did not interpret that as being a representation of a conspiracy, as I read your words for what they were. If you interpret my words as saying there has been a conspiracy, then it goes both ways. The Report of the Commission in essence is a justification for making war on Al Qaeda wherever they are not in specific words, but the message is clear. One cannot be critical of the invasion in Iraq and say that the Commission Report is an oracle of truth on 9 11.

And before you go into your "it's a conspiracy" claim argument, I don't think the Government has the savvy to commit acts of terrorism on the 9/11 level of sophistication. And even more important, Government does not have the ability to keep their mouths shut. There is always someone who would have gone on a guilt trip of remorse. Julian Assange would have had an inside story on this a long time ago.
ocalhoun
Just felt like posting a friendly reminder...
Both of you are talking about each other an awful lot. Things can get ugly pretty fast that way.
Nobody's done anything wrong yet, but it looks like it might end up badly.

(Trying to avert trouble before it starts.)
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.