• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

9/11: The September 11th Attacks

Pietro M, like me, has also commented on this more than once: exactly how did the 47-column core of either tower collapse so completely?How did they collapse at all? They didn't have floors pancaking down on them, the fires weren't near them, and wouldn't have had the same effect as they may(or may not) have had on the floors.
Despite having radically different properties from the floors the cores somehow fell in unison with the floors.Perhaps that's where the explosives were.The floors wouldn't have collapsed so evenly and inwardly unless the cores had given out just before, yet they should have been the most resilient element in the towers.
And not so much as a stump left! In the final seconds of the collapses the load of the falling floors on the cores would have diminished greatly, but somehow not even the lower portions survived.
How does gravity and heat from fires that were going out do a thorough demolition job like this?
 
Bigfoot73 said:
No it really was a small white missile or pilotless drone.More witnesses attest to seeing such a craft than to seeing an airliner.
The surviving 'hijackers' weren't militants at all - they'd just been identity theft victims.Salim al Hazmi(flight 77), Ahmed Alnami,(Flight 93), Saeed al-Ghamdi, and others. See "The New Pearl Harbour" by David Ray Griffin.
When Mohammed Atta was living in Florida passing the time on a floating casino his stripper girlfriend searched his belongings and found six passports all in his name but all with different photos.

I'd suggest you look again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H285_DWX_bQ

Whatever it is it is not small. Despite being considerably further from the camera it appears on the screen about the same size as a truck. There can't be too many missiles that big that could have been fired at the Pentagon. And is there a pilotless drone capable of leaving behind the fuselage of an American Airlines flight? I'd also be curious as to what your evidence is for the claim that more witnesses attest to seeing a missile/drone (they can't be very good witnesses if it can't be agreed which one). That aside nobody has yet come forward with their own grassy knoll story yet. Why no witnessing of the thing that supposedly fired the missile?

Which particular 'hijackers' do you believe were victims of identity theft? Reports about certain hijackers being alive and well after 9/11 appear to be erroneous, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waleed_al-Shehri#Aftermath

Even if they had announced the attackers and named victims of identity fraud what does this actually prove? Unless you're claiming that none of them had any links with militancy then it's a moot point since some clearly did. Clearly Atta was since we know for a fact that he attended Islamist meetings in Afghanistan and by your admission was in the business of carrying around dubious passports. According to your same source he was also receiving flight training. The problem with that source, however, is that it's come out and admitted to lying her much ogled arse off about the whole affair:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Amanda_Keller
 
Whatever it is , it is not an airliner. If it was a drone of the sort currently operating in Afghanistan it would have taken off under it's own power, possibly hundreds of miles away.
As for witnesses, Griffin again.Now I've actually looked it up, most describe a white aircraft around the size of a small executive jet with a high pitched whining sound.
Reports about other hijackers being alive and well turn out to be absolutely true.
I'm not claiming none of them had links with militancy, rather that it's suspicious that there should be so much as one that didn't.
Atta was one of six people using that identity, and the Keller debunking page you url-ed didn't contradict that claim. Perhaps one of them did go to islamist meetings, maybe the one who got sent 100 000 dollars by the head of the Pakistan intelligence service 2 days before the hijackings.
 
Flight 93 crashed in a farmers field. The "landfill" you see is the debris from the plane mixed in with all the dead fucking bodies.
 
Bigfoot73 said:
How is it that a few thousand gallons of aviation fuel, minus what combusted immediately or burned away outside the towers, could do as much damage as an impossibly large quantity of explosives or thermite?

The fire weakened the steel supports and the building, already messed up from having a plane smash into it, collapsed. It's really that simple. It doesn't need the added complication of explosives.

Alternative conspiracy theory: explosives that leave no trace or a huge amount of thermite was quietly installed to bring down the building in a demolition job larger than anything ever seen before. Hundreds, if not thousands, of conspirators have kept quiet about it ever since.

Watch the videos! You can clearly see the towers collapsing at or just above the area the planes hit, where the fires were hottest and the structure the weakest. Are we expected to believe that explosives were planted on these particular floors and nowhere else, and the planes managed to hit in just the right place?

Watch the demolition of a building and it's nothing like 9/11. You can see and hear the explosives going off all the way up the building, bottom to top.

what about all the experts who agree with the conspiracists?

Which experts? And what about them, there are bound to be some who do but the vast majority do not. If they have some good evidence I suggest they get it published.

Most of the videos consist of TV channel footage, some of it showing reporters describing grey windowless military planes.

Which reporters? How close were they stood? How did no one else spot this? Where are the hijacked planes now?

no background of Islamist militancy

Where are you getting this stuff? The hijackers had associations with al-Qaeda and other groups. Nawaf al-Hazmi for example:

Hazmi obtained a B-1/B-2 tourist visa on April 3, 1999 from the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, using a new passport he acquired a few weeks earlier. Hazmi's passport did have indicators of Al-Qaeda association, but immigration inspectors were not trained to look for those.

The man who planned the attacks was a known extremist and is now in US custody.

There was also Mohamed al Kahtani, who they suspect was supposed to be on one of the planes but was stopped by a suspicious inspector.

and in some cases hedonistic leisure pursuits.

Are you referring to the news reports that Atta was seen drinking in a bar Florida? This was the same day he wired thousands of dollars abroad from a location in Maryland, so maybe he also owned a teleportation device.

Some of them are still alive

Prove it.

Mohammed Atta didn't get on the plane.

Prove it.

What keeps us self-deluding conspiracy-monkeys going is preposterous stuff like the way Flight 93 disappeared into the ground without a trace except a hijackers' personal affects,

It wasn't without a trace. There was a big crater with debris spread over a large area. Personal effects were found and this included the documents of passengers, don't know where you got the idea it was just the hijackers effects. Eye witnesses at the scene report seeing debris, not to mention seeing a big plane smash into the ground.

But then I guess they're in on it too huh?

only to land safely in Cleveland an hour later.

Ah, the old ones are the best eh?

WCPO reporter Liz Foreman has posted a response about the claim that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland:

I thought it was time to set the record straight on a website error that's gotten out of hand.

I've been getting calls and e-mails for several years, all from folks who have seen my byline on a story (Plane Lands In Cleveland; Bomb Feared Aboard) about Flight 93, the plane that crashed in a Pennsylvania field on September 11, 2001.

The story in question, an Associated Press bulletin, was posted on WCPO.com during the morning of September 11, 2001. The story stated that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland. This was not true.

Once the AP issued a retraction a few minutes later, we removed the link.

More here.

Why do you believe this flight 93 stuff anyway, what do you think they intended to do with the plane? Why go through all this trouble?

Or the Pentagon gate footage of the small white missile hitting it-not an airliner.

How is it a small white missile, where's your proof of this. It's a blurry image of what looks a lot like an airliner. Have you ever seen a missile? They are smaller than a commercial airliner.

Or the way tha 'airliner' went all the way through the Pentagon's rings to emerge through a tiny exit hole without so much as breaking a window in-between or leaving any wreckage.

The plane hit, severely damaged the reinforced outer ring (where there most definitely were broken windows) and got smashed into pieces, some of which was left outside and some inside. The interior walls are not reinforced and the ground floors of the Pentagon are open plan. The debris that went through the other rings was what little was left of the plane by that point, including the heavy landing gear, and one engine which ended up in the second ring. What remained of the fuselage was probably not much more than a very hot lump of metal by that point, but it was travelling at sufficient velocity to go through some concrete.

Where is your evidence that no windows were smashed anyway? And there were no explosives in the front of the plane so maybe it's not going to smash what I would assume is toughened glass. If it was a missile surely the explosives would have smashed windows.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to claim, really. It was a missile, but one with no explosives? Why? How? Who did this? Where are the people that prepared the missile and launched it? Why are people lying about seeing an aircraft fly overhead and hit the building? Once again, the real story of a commercial aircraft travelling very fast is both simpler and more sensible.

Lots more about the Pentagon silliness at Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp

The wreckage was supposedly vapourised by the intensity of the fire

Try harder. Two seconds on Google Images would show you numerous pictures of wreckage around the Pentagon. The rest of it ended up illegally parked inside the Pentagon.

Or the unaccountable presence on the WTC's pavements of a hijacker's travel documents

It's not unaccountable. The passport was blown out in the crash with a lot of other debris. It's just one of those things. Remains of 33 bodies from the same plane were (somehow) recovered as well. But what do you think happened, 'they' soaked the passport in jet fuel and left it on the ground for someone to find? Why bother? There were records showing who got on the plane and al-Qaeda took responsibility, it wasn't necessary. It's one of the few actual facts that conspiracy nuts can hang onto when all else fails, but it doesn't prove anything.

and a jet engine. Someone got the number off it before it disappeared and it turned out to be from a 1960s bomber called a B66.

Well this one is new to me. Evidence please. Although I would point out that a 767 is quite a bit larger than a B66 and has a completely different profile, and the B66 was mothballed in 1973. Who maintained the aircraft? Who got it ready for flight? Who flew it? What happened to the hijacked planes? How did they fit the bodies of passengers on board the B66? Who built the holographic projector that made it look like a 767?

To quote Monty Python, this is all getting very silly indeed.

If the sceptics require such rigorous standards of evidence for WTC7, let's see what they can come up with for everything else suspicious about 9/11.

Prove what you're saying! You're the one coming up with ridiculous claims, so lets see your evidence. Burden of proof is on you.

While you're at it, please lay out your complete explanation for the events for that day. According to you, what happened, and why?

But here's a friendly tip, bigfoot. Stop believing what silly internet documentaries like Loose Change say. Either deliberately or by mistake they mislead, misinterpret and outright lie in an effort to prove their pet theories. Ever wonder why Loose Change went through so many different editions? It's because they had to keep updating it when the things they said were proven to be false.
 
Game, set and match to Hokum6, I think. But no matter how rational you are with conspiracy theorists, people pretty much believe what they want to believe, so if you don't trust the authorities (a remnant from the hippy heydays that influenced a wide range of people even to this day) then you're not going to accept any number of facts that prove your case wrong.
 
Hokum6:- In my last post I drew attention to the cores of the towers and how suspicious it was that they fell so completely and quickly.It isn't as simple as impact and heat.
Yes it does require a lot of explosives and a lot of people keeping quiet.It did and they have.
I could say the same thing about sceptic experts as tou say about conspiracist experts.To modify an old chestnut: there's lies, damned lies, and experts.
Reporters: Fox and CNN and more, and there were civilians who saw military-looking planes. I should point out at this stage that I receive no remuneration from YouTube for my promotional services.
I don't know where the planes are now but until recently 3 of them were listed as still in service, with spares being ordered for them. None of them were scheduled to fly on 9/11.
As I have said before I never said the terrorists didn't have militant backgrounds, just that it's odd they all didn't have impeccable Islamist pedigrees.Most of them seemed to have had lifestyles at odds with Islamic observance, and many of them seem to have had simultaneous parallel lives.Atta wasn't the only one where more than one person was living under that identity, and with 6 possible Attas there's little point believing any reports of his actions anywhere.
He can't have boarded the plane because by taking that inexplicable first flight to Boston and coming straight back he fell under the security procedures for a passenger joining from a connecting flight. this meant his luggage would not be loaded until it was confirmed he was on board. His luggage was never loaded, and his name is absent from the passenger list, therefore he didn't get on the plane.

So people saw 93 crash straight into the hole in the ground which was already there? Remarkable. As for debris.so they found a few other bits and bobs ... oh and there were all those pieces of paper blowing round a lake shore or something.STRANGE HOW THEY DIDN'T FIND A SINGLE BLOODY PIECE OF FLIGHT 93 !!!!! Never mind what do I think they did with it, what do you think they did with it exactly?Where's the oh-so-well-researched, chillingly rational geek-deflating explanation for Flight 93 completely burying itself in the ground leaving not so much as a fleck of paint on the surface?

How is it the sceptics can get so patronising and self-righteous about the alleged weakneses of the WTC demolition theory and then unquestioningly accept the official explanation for Flight 93?

Do I think that's a missile flying inot the Pentagon? No, I think it's a pilotless drone. Do you think it's an airliner? In what way does that resemble an airliner?An airliner looks like an airliner.
The photos of the Pentagon damege I saw show no damage to the inner rings and a very small hole on the outside of the innermost ring, without any holes or damage to the walls inbetween. My suggestion is it was a missile with explosives and a charge against the inner wall.I've seen accounts by people who saw a plane , but not people who saw it actually hit - if there was a plane it cloud have flown over the roof.
Try harder about the wreckage? Brilliant - the vapourised wreckage was the OFFICIAL explanation! The wreckage on the lawn appeared later and there are photos of crew-cut suited guys putting bits of wreckage on the grass( before you ask I can't remember the book title or the sites they were posted on.)

Stone the crows , I've just got to the comment about the B66 engine. The engine was just a piece of junk used as false evidence. It was planted there, there was no B66. Rationalism burgeons at the expense of imagination :- loosen up a bit Hokum, that's a very confined intellectual space you and the sceptics are in!

Burden of proof is a rather inconsistently observed notion in this debate, and I don't see anything ridiculous in my claims.Where do the sceptics' apparent wealth of expert testimony and intellectual rigour go whenever the argument moves away from WTC 7?
The rationalism of the sceptics is the elephant in the room of 9/11.It stops people from seeing anything else.
 
p.s. I've only ever watched one Loose Change video and wasn't impressed.
 
And what's all this nonsense about not trusting the authorities being some cultural aberration? This is the Fortean Times website you're on gcxx, not some Tory thinktank!
 
Do I think that's a missile flying inot the Pentagon? No, I think it's a pilotless drone. Do you think it's an airliner? In what way does that resemble an airliner?An airliner looks like an airliner.

Question for Bigfoot. What happened to the actual plane? What happened to the passengers and crew who were on it?
 
Bigfoot73 said:
...So people saw 93 crash straight into the hole in the ground which was already there? Remarkable. As for debris.so they found a few other bits and bobs ... oh and there were all those pieces of paper blowing round a lake shore or something.STRANGE HOW THEY DIDN'T FIND A SINGLE BLOODY PIECE OF FLIGHT 93 !!!!! Never mind what do I think they did with it, what do you think they did with it exactly?Where's the oh-so-well-researched, chillingly rational geek-deflating explanation for Flight 93 completely burying itself in the ground leaving not so much as a fleck of paint on the surface?
There was plenty of debris, just in very small pieces, and the lighter pieces were scattered over a wide area by the explosion on impact.

And gosh, one of the engines being excavated.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flight93Engine.jpg



Do I think that's a missile flying inot the Pentagon? No, I think it's a pilotless drone. Do you think it's an airliner? In what way does that resemble an airliner?An airliner looks like an airliner.
The photos of the Pentagon damege I saw show no damage to the inner rings and a very small hole on the outside of the innermost ring, without any holes or damage to the walls inbetween. My suggestion is it was a missile with explosives and a charge against the inner wall.I've seen accounts by people who saw a plane , but not people who saw it actually hit - if there was a plane it cloud have flown over the roof.

That would have been rather noticeable, I'm not sure you could actually do a stunt like that without tearing the plane apart!

Try harder about the wreckage? Brilliant - the vapourised wreckage was the OFFICIAL explanation! The wreckage on the lawn appeared later and there are photos of crew-cut suited guys putting bits of wreckage on the grass( before you ask I can't remember the book title or the sites they were posted on.)

They're actually Pentagon personnel picking up pieces of debris.

Stone the crows , I've just got to the comment about the B66 engine. The engine was just a piece of junk used as false evidence. It was planted there, there was no B66. Rationalism burgeons at the expense of imagination :- loosen up a bit Hokum, that's a very confined intellectual space you and the sceptics are in!

If you're planting evidence you plant pieces of a 767, not bits of an obsolete military aircraft. At least I would, but then I'm not one of the NWO!
 
What do you think happened to the plane?I've just bashed out a load of answers to Hokum 6 and asked a few questions myself and you come up with yet another goalpost-shifting question.
Seeing as that quite obviously isn't a plane in the video, and there quite obviously wasn't a plane at the Flight 93 'crash' site, I think it's time the sceptics started addressing such questions themselves.
Yes that's right I said obvious. That wasn't a plane flying into the Pentagon, and there wasn't a plane at the 93 site.Was there?
 
It's only obvious to someone who derives all their evidence from conspiracy sites.

What happened to Flight 93, if it didn't end up in small pieces in Pennsylvania?
 
MsPix. You don't even touch evidence at a crime scene let alone pick it up, and no, the B66 engine isn't a lie.Even a 767 engine would have looked suspicious, standing on the pavement with no sign of an impact, connecting cables or fastenings.
Excavated Flight 93 engine?Tell me about it! Tiny little pieces of what exactly?Flight 93?
 
You're very good at not thinking things through. If you wanted to plant evidence you'd at least plant pieces of the plane that was supposed to have hit the building after suitably distressing it.

And Fight 93, a lot of debris was found, you just won't believe anybody who tells you debris was found.

If you want to set up an aircrash, the easiest way is to sabotage a plane, or crash not use a missle and then try to make it look like a crash, that way there's not evidence to contradict your story.

BTW: to go with the OP's engine one of the bigger pieces of Flight 93

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:p200061.jpg

You still haven't answered what you think really happened to Flight 93....

It didn't land at Cleveland, so what happened to the plane and passengers?
 
If you want to plant evidence you wouldn't choose a new-ish 767 engine -toomuch of a paper trail.Something that can play the part during a few hours of chaos until the collapse obscures it.

I am quite prepared to accept that debris was found, it's just that it wasn't from Flight 93.Yes,that is a big part of a plane, but even the caption underneath doesn't specifically say it's proven as Flight 93. It looks like the piece I saw in a pic being fished out of a lake.

Which brings me neatly to what i think happened to it: that engine that was found was some distance from the crash site, and that's because it was shot off by a heat seeking missile from the F16 that witnesses claimed to have seen following it, and the plane came down in the lake. Thank you for not only asking me that question but finding the evidence for my answer for yourselves before I even had chance to cite them! Most commodious of you.
 
Bigfoot73 said:
And what's all this nonsense about not trusting the authorities being some cultural aberration? This is the Fortean Times website you're on gcxx, not some Tory thinktank!

It's not a Tory think tank, true, but neither is it a wacky fantasyland of unchallenged ideas where The Man is only trying to keep us freethinkers down. I didn't say anything was an aberration, I was merely observing that there are plenty who make up their minds on big subjects without allowing any subsequent alternative, no matter how convincing its proof, the time of day. Happens across the spectrum of human opinion.
 
Re the Pentagon plane....if there was a conspiracy involved, then don't you think that the conspirators would have made it look more like a plane had crashed into the building? I mean, if shooting a missile into the Pentagon would not look as though a plane had hit it, why not crash an aeroplane into it instead? Not very clever conspirators are they? Leaving so many clues and improbable connections around.

I do have some sympathy with the conspiracy angle, but I cant help but think that the truth lies somewhere in between the two sides.
 
gncxx: good comment,it's nice to encounter a fair minded sceptic for a change.
Cavynaut, couldn't agree more about the drone.It has been suggested the plane flew low at the Pentagon then went over the roof, to land at Reagan AFB a couple of miles to the North.I've even seen a video showing how the lamp-posts outside the Pentagon were found unbolted from their foundations and laid flat, to conceal the fact that they hadn't been damaged by a very low-flying plane's wings. like they should have been.

Yes it is hard to see how they thought they could pull it off.I also think the answer is somewhere between the two poles.
It helps explain the massive loss of life if you allow for the possibility that the charges in the towers were put there by someone other than the 'hijack' team :- maybe they didn't know they were there at all.Maybe they did know about the suspected other charges, in the foyer, the printing press and the car park:- there's evidence of explosions at these locations at about the time of the impacts, and perhaps they should have gone off slightly earlier to cause evacuation. limiting the casualties.
It was just too big an operation to pull off flawlessly.They overlooked all the cameras, the cameraphones, and the historical record of the use of orchestrated incidents to start wars for gain.

Before the monstrous regiment of Justified and Ancient Immortal Ascended Great Old Ones start baying for my theory about what happened to the passengers :- I haven't got one. Perhaps they were government stooges.Perhaps they were innocent citizens threatened into silence and new identities. Perhaps they just shot them.Sceptics may howl but somehow that seems the least unlikely answer.
 
I actually wonder if the Conspiracy Theorists aren't actually the conspiracy.

The truth being that the planes were hijacked by groups of highly-motivated young men, hyped up on mixture of religious extremism and anti-American propaganda. That they suceeded in flying their planes into their targets in three cases and the that fourth plane crashed short of its target when the passengers fought back.

The collapse of the WTC buildings showed that a simulation is only as good as the information you have, the buildings withstood the initial impacts as designed, but collapsed after fires in the impact zone further weakened the buildings. Experiments always trump theory and the experiment was repeated with identical results.

However, the hijack teams weren't exactly experts at undercover operations. If the accounts are correct their behaviour should have aroused suspicion among the FBI and the other Federal agencies. Through incompetence, interagency rivalaries, and lack of political foresight, they weren't spotted. Despite the earlier WTC bombing the CIA and FBI didn't take the threat of Islamic extremists seriously enough, information wasn't passed on, or was ignored. This incompetence may even have gone right to the top, I don't believe that Bush had the imagination to understand the implications of any intellegence, even it reached him.

After 911, a lot of people realised that their arses were on the line if the truth that their utter incompentence allowed a major atack on the USA to occur ever came out. There's lots of activity to shift the blame...but they need something more.

There is as always a small bunch of loons who believe that the government or the Jews, or the NWO are behind everything. Why not encourage this? That way you make anyone who questions the official version of events look like a swivel-eyed, foaming loony, who lives in his bedroom, has poor personal hygiene and surfs the internet in his pants.

The whole "911 Truth Movement", is hijacked to divert attention away from the incompetence of the FBI, CIA, and perhaps even the incumbent at the Whitehouse in failing to prevent the events of 911...

In short, the 911 Truth Movement is being used as disinformation, by co-opting the gullible and paranoid (without their knowledge), to divert attention from ineffectiveness of the security services and the failure of the administration to protect the US from attack.

A similar situation would be the subverting of UFO investigators in the 50s and 60s to cover up secret aircraft testing during the Cold War
 
Love it. This is hilarious, your posts are rapidly descending into sheer paranoid lunacy. This is why I love arguing about this stuff, it starts off almost reasonable with 'I'm not sure I totally buy the official story' and ends up with some utterly bonkers theories. Don't need to worry about logic or evidence, just let you dig your own hole.

Bigfoot73 said:
Hokum6:- In my last post I drew attention to the cores of the towers and how suspicious it was that they fell so completely and quickly.It isn't as simple as impact and heat.

Yes, it is as simple as that. What you're saying is 'I don't believe what hundreds, if not thousands, of engineers and demolition experts are saying because I've watched some YouTube videos and it seems improbable, they are either stupid or in on the conspiracy'. How much do you think they got paid to keep quiet?

And with all the videos showing how the towers collapsed you're also denying what you can see with your own eyes

Yes it does require a lot of explosives and a lot of people keeping quiet.It did and they have.

The demolition theory is, as has been pointed out many times, completely ludicrous for various reasons. So...your proof of this, please.

I could say the same thing about sceptic experts as tou say about conspiracist experts.To modify an old chestnut: there's lies, damned lies, and experts.

Eh? Makes no sense. The point is that what you and every other conspiracy nut does is completely disregard the testimony of people who know what they are talking about and refuse to believe what you can see with your own eyes, based on nothing but your paranoia and rejection of critical thinking. You also misinterpret or twist what people have said in order to fit your theories.

Reporters: Fox and CNN and more, and there were civilians who saw military-looking planes.

Evidence of this. What was it about them that made them 'military-looking'? You should be very careful when accepting what people said on the day, there has been an awful lot of confusion about what people said in the heat of the moment and it's left the conspiracy theorists looking very silly indeed when they misinterpret or twist a statement. For example, the air traffic controllers who stated that the planes 'moved like military aircraft'. Conspiracy nuts jumped on this straight away as evidence of government involvement, but forgot to mention one small detail: the controllers never stated the planes could not manoeuvre like that, but that they typically only saw those kind of turns from military planes which don't need to worry about upsetting their passengers.

And...why would they cock-up their grand conspiracy by using planes that could be identified as military aircraft. They've got hijacked planes! Why not use them!?

I don't know where the planes are now but until recently 3 of them were listed as still in service, with spares being ordered for them. None of them were scheduled to fly on 9/11.

Really! We're going to need proof of this claim or I'm going to totally ignore it, as I fear we're rapidly descending into la-la land. Do you not question the competency of the conspirators, able to bring down a building but forget to dispose of the aircraft and just leave them flying around? How careless!

As I have said before I never said the terrorists didn't have militant backgrounds, just that it's odd they all didn't have impeccable Islamist pedigrees. Most of them seemed to have had lifestyles at odds with Islamic observance, and many of them seem to have had simultaneous parallel lives.

How is that odd? You are aware that they are human, and that humans often do this thing where they ignore what their religion says and just do what they want. I can't help but feel you're going off into a completely pointless tangent with this one, I fail to see how this has anything to do the discussion at hand except to point out the hypocrisy of some religious followers, which is hardly a great revelation.

He can't have boarded the plane because by taking that inexplicable first flight to Boston and coming straight back he fell under the security procedures for a passenger joining from a connecting flight. this meant his luggage would not be loaded until it was confirmed he was on board. His luggage was never loaded, and his name is absent from the passenger list, therefore he didn't get on the plane.

Yes, Atta made a mistake:

The connection between the two flights at Logan International Airport was within Terminal B, but the two gates were not connected within security. One must cross a parking garage before going through security once again. There are two separate concourses in Terminal B; the south concourse is mainly used by US Airways and the north one is mostly used by American Airlines. It was overlooked that there would still be security in Boston because of this distinct detail of the terminal's arrangement.

Because the flight from Portland to Boston had been delayed, his bags did not make it onto Flight 11. Atta's bags were later recovered in Logan International Airport

I'm quoting from the all-knowing Wikipedia, but you can see the original source here.

And, er, he did get on the plane. He was sat in seat 8D. Where's your evidence he never boarded the plane?

So people saw 93 crash straight into the hole in the ground which was already there? Remarkable.

What are you talking about? Who is telling you this stuff? The plane smashed into land that was a reclaimed coal mine and left a ten foot deep crater.

As for debris.so they found a few other bits and bobs ... oh and there were all those pieces of paper blowing round a lake shore or something.STRANGE HOW THEY DIDN'T FIND A SINGLE BLOODY PIECE OF FLIGHT 93 !!!!! Never mind what do I think they did with it, what do you think they did with it exactly?Where's the oh-so-well-researched, chillingly rational geek-deflating explanation for Flight 93 completely burying itself in the ground leaving not so much as a fleck of paint on the surface?

You're losing it. There are pictures of the debris all over the place. How did you get the idea they never found a single piece of it?

How is it the sceptics can get so patronising and self-righteous about the alleged weakneses of the WTC demolition theory and then unquestioningly accept the official explanation for Flight 93?

Er...eh? How can we accept the facts for the WTC towers and then accept the facts for the flight 93 crash...nope, you've lost me now.

Do I think that's a missile flying inot the Pentagon? No, I think it's a pilotless drone. Do you think it's an airliner? In what way does that resemble an airliner?An airliner looks like an airliner.

It's a big plane with wings and an engine, that's how it resembles an airliner. People saw an airliner fly over and crash. An airliner was hijacked that day. The people who were on it died. A pilotless drone looks nothing like an airliner, they're much smaller. How did a pilotless drone leave behind the wreckage of a commercial airliner?

The photos of the Pentagon damege I saw show no damage to the inner rings and a very small hole on the outside of the innermost ring, without any holes or damage to the walls inbetween. My suggestion is it was a missile with explosives and a charge against the inner wall.I've seen accounts by people who saw a plane , but not people who saw it actually hit - if there was a plane it cloud have flown over the roof.

There was damage to the other rings, there are numerous photos showing this, but of course it wouldn't have been as severe since the reinforced outer ring took the brunt of the impact, not to mention the fact that the plane hit the ground first, sapping some of its potential energy.

Your idea is just plain silly. Not only are we now dealing with a missile that looks like an airliner and leaves behind airliner wreckage, but it was coupled with an explosive charge on the outside of the building? Never mind that this enormously complicated plot would have involved even more conspirators who have again managed to stay quiet, that would have been one hell of a bang. Remember that the interior walls were not reinforced, so if a missile had got through the exterior ring it would have made one a heck of a mess.

I guess it's too much to ask for some proof of this nonsense.

there are photos of crew-cut suited guys putting bits of wreckage on the grass( before you ask I can't remember the book title or the sites they were posted on.)

:lol: Fantastic. Not only can you not provide a source for this utterly mental story but I fail to see how you could discern the difference between someone picking something up and putting something down from nothing but a still image. That's some CRAZY reasoning you've got going on there. Where did the wreckage of the real airliner come from? How did no one spot them leaving the wreckage on the grass? Why didn't the emergency services on the scene ask why they were dumping airplane wreckage all over the place? Why did the people who placed it there not say something afterwards? Why, in fact, bother at all with this complicated scenario? Every time you come up with a wild new story it opens up a whole load of questions you are completely unable to answer.

Stone the crows , I've just got to the comment about the B66 engine. The engine was just a piece of junk used as false evidence. It was planted there, there was no B66. Rationalism burgeons at the expense of imagination :- loosen up a bit Hokum, that's a very confined intellectual space you and the sceptics are in!

According to you they got this old engine from a mothballed military jet, forgot to remove the identifying markings, transported it over, left it lying there until someone saw it, then took it away again.

And I'M the one in the confined space.

Besides, still waiting for your evidence of this claim.

Burden of proof is a rather inconsistently observed notion in this debate, and I don't see anything ridiculous in my claims.

Really, you don't see anything ridiculous at all? :?
The burden of proof is being perfectly observed. You are the one making outlandish claims therefore you must provide the evidence to back it up. Is that unreasonable? Otherwise I could just claim any old rubbish. Like, it was invisible Godzilla. Invisible Godzilla swam from Japan, knocked down the towers, ate the planes and kicked a hole in the Pentagon. Now you prove I am wrong.

Where do the sceptics' apparent wealth of expert testimony and intellectual rigour go whenever the argument moves away from WTC 7?

Erm, we moved on from WTC 7 a long time ago and provided perfectly rational responses to every single ridiculous story you've spouted. You really are starting to go off the rails though, you're getting increasingly desperate and making less sense with every post.

The rationalism of the sceptics is the elephant in the room of 9/11.It stops people from seeing anything else.

Yeah, fuck logic! Let's just make shit up until it fits!


The funniest thing about these conspiracy theories is how they require the conspirators (lizard people/NWO/Bush government) to be both unbelievably smart, organised and dedicated but also completely incompetent at the same time. If Bigfoot's wonderful yarns are to be believed they are able to bring off the destruction of some of the tallest buildings in the world without leaving a trace and have thousands of people lie about what they saw without a single whistleblower, yet they forget minor details like not getting rid of the planes that were supposedly involved and letting them fly around as normal, or allowing the alleged terrorists to walk free.

It's a bizarre juxtaposition of belief in an omnipotent government and complete mistrust of those in charge. I do wonder how the conspiracy theorists make this work in their heads.

Timble2 said:
In short, the 911 Truth Movement is being used as disinformation, by co-opting the gullible and paranoid (without their knowledge), to divert attention from ineffectiveness of the security services and the failure of the administration to protect the US from attack.

I suspect you are closer to the real truth than the truthers will ever get. They spend their time debating increasingly nonsensical and complicated conspiracy plots and this not only diverts attention away from any real controversy but also means that if they ever did stumble upon something that happened to be embarrassing to the government it could very easily be dismissed as the ranting of lunatics.

A shame they don't direct their energy to examining the incompetency and failings of the intelligence agencies and the Bush government. It's not as sexy, but it might be real as opposed to some horrendously complicated imaginary plot.
 
Hokum, your post was beginning to look like quite a weighty argument until you started agreeing with Timble about the conspiracy movement diverting attention from government incompetence.
I have often thought this scenario could apply to ufology, with alien paranoia obscuring government secret technology, but 9/11? Timble and you think there might have been some incompetence on the part of the security agencies, which could go all the way to the top? My, how wicked! Only one big, glaring problem with this: it's true.

Yes that's what I said.Those terrorists only succeeded because the FBI did nothing with evidence of a plot, the radar operators were asleep at their screens, airport security was lax etc. etc. That is , unless I'm mistaken, the official story, told by the Bush government and scrutinised by the 9/11 Commission. No smokescreen of conspiracy paranoia could ever obscure it.There is nothing preventing thousands of government employees from facing disciplinary charges or even prosecution for their failings.Yet none of them have, which is rather strange, don't you think?

Sceptics can't believe that the conspiracy would have relied on thousands of participants all keeping quiet but somehow believe 9/11 was due to thousands of government agents of all descriptions being crap at their jobs.So why not drag out all the evidence for all to see, prove it and sack/jail them? Because the official theory IS the coverup, as investigations would reveal.Haven't you ever asked yourselves about this before now? Talk about utterly bonkers theories!Where's your insatiable demand for proof now?

Back to the ludicrous and disproved demolition theories, by which I assume you refer to the NIST/Popular Mechanics stuff. This has itself been debunked , see the atrociously titled "Debunking 9/11 Debunking", the latest from DR Griffin. When I said "lies, damned lies and experts" I was alluding in a rather conciliatory way to the fact that the sceptic experts have all been debunked themselves.Who is disregarding the testimony of expert people now?

The military looking planes are featured on various on YouTube but if you can still see an airliner in the Pentagon films you won't be able to see the jets themselves so check out the clips of the reporters and leave it at that.

How do people go through their lives being being evryday religious hypocrites and then go kill themselves and thousands of others for God?

Where does it say Atta sat in 8D/ If so, why was his case left off the plane?

Have you actually taken any of my Flight 93 comments on board yet?You see fit to accuse me of twisting people's comments to fit my theories when you never seem to have read my stuff very closely . The hole was already there in a 1994 USGS satellite photo.You keep asking for evidence etc then forget all about it.
The debris at the site didn't include anything specific to 93, I thought I'd made that clear.The engine was found miles away and the fuselage segment came out of a lake. i haven't heard back from the sceptics who so obligingly drew my attention to them and I doubt that you've got anything to say about them either.go check their sources why don't you?

My point was that sceptics produce a wealth of evidence in support of the official explanation for the towers' collapse yet are strangely content to do without it vis-a-vis the Pentagon and 93.Selective application of academic rigour.
Yes, a pilotless drone is nothing like an airliner. that's why the Pentagon film so incontroveribly shows a pilotless drone. not an airliner . Try believing the evidence of your own eyes for once Hokum, you're always demanding it and then ignoring it when put in front of you.
If the plane hit the ground outside the Pentagon with sufficient force to dissipate much of it's kinetic energy then where's the crater?Need I say this again,the wreckage was planted. The drone didn't look like an airliner and the explosives weren't on the outside of the building.

As for my ideas being just plain silly. they're not my ideas they are your shadow version of my ideas based on your entrenched and indefensible perspective.You claim to have provided perfectly rational responses to every point I've raised, so why not provide some for the perfectly rational responses I've responded with.
 
Yes that's what I said.Those terrorists only succeeded because the FBI did nothing with evidence of a plot, the radar operators were asleep at their screens, airport security was lax etc. etc. That is , unless I'm mistaken, the official story, told by the Bush government and scrutinised by the 9/11 Commission. No smokescreen of conspiracy paranoia could ever obscure it.There is nothing preventing thousands of government employees from facing disciplinary charges or even prosecution for their failings.Yet none of them have, which is rather strange, don't you think?

No, not really. It's very difficult to discipline employees in situations like this, where a lot of individual acts which are minor in themselves add up to a systemic or institutional problem. Any attempt to blame a junior or mid-ranking employee results in he or she kicking the problem up to the next level and so on and so forth. The various agencies involved could either (a) hold 1000s of disciplinary hearings and jam up their organisations for years with internal hearings and legal cases or (b) take note of the Commission's recommendations and implement them. Any sensible body would of course plump for (b).

.So why not drag out all the evidence for all to see

The Commission did so and as you say criticised various agencies and airport authorities. I'm not sure what your point is here as you have already said above that this is what happened.

How do people go through their lives being being evryday religious hypocrites and then go kill themselves and thousands of others for God?

Because people are complex and are often conflicted. We've all lost count of the number of times religious and family values types turn out to be hiring rent boys or snorting coke. The fact that Atta may or may not have attended a strip club at some stage does not preclude him being an Islamist. The 7/7 bombers drank and smoked cannabis and I understand bin Laden himself lived a relatively Westernised life in 70s Britain.


My point was that sceptics produce a wealth of evidence in support of the official explanation for the towers' collapse yet are strangely content to do without it vis-a-vis the Pentagon and 93.Selective application of academic rigour.

This is nonsense. Hokum has comprehensively debunked your claims on the Pentagon and Flight 93. I note that you fail to respond to any of his or other posters' questions.

I'm still interested as to how you think a conspiracy of this magnitude could be maintained for this length of time, and also why you think the instigators of such a conspiracy would be so stupid as to have the aircraft oncerned still in commercial service.
 
Cavynaut said:
Re the Pentagon plane....if there was a conspiracy involved, then don't you think that the conspirators would have made it look more like a plane had crashed into the building? I mean, if shooting a missile into the Pentagon would not look as though a plane had hit it, why not crash an aeroplane into it instead? Not very clever conspirators are they? Leaving so many clues and improbable connections around.

I do have some sympathy with the conspiracy angle, but I cant help but think that the truth lies somewhere in between the two sides.

At first, it seems a strong objection. But maybe they simply screwed up. Flying a huge airliner to a relatively small building like the Pentagon was to dificult ; the risks were high that it would hurt the roofs, and slided until the core of the Pentagon, causing massive damage and threatening the ministry office. Hence the choice of probably not a small missile, but of a small or mid-sized, manoeuvrable aircraft. It failed to look like an airliner crash, because something got wrong, explosives in the walls did not detonate or else. In such a vast conspiracy, cock-ups are not surprising.
There is another possibility, that there were more than one group involved. The Pentagon was a warning of conspirators to other conspirators. While I think plausible that there were different levels of conspiracy, not everybody aware of the whole scheme, I'm not too fond of it. But it can't be ruled out.
I considered first that it could be a piece of disinformation. But the evidence, from early photos and films, is there : we are left with no trace of an airliner crash. Lack of debris, except for a small number of metal pieces (half a dozen to nine according to sources), curiously all with part of the logo on them, a reactor of dubious origin, an undercarriage with no reference. An entry hole too small. And an exit hole which could not be caused by a piece of fuselage or reactor.
 
So it's difficult to conduct disciplinary tribunals.So why feed the conspiracy smokescreen to divert attention from that fact?That's what Hokum and Timble were alleging.
I think it takes a bit more than half-hearted muddled spritual confusion to make someone kill themselves and hundreds more with them.
Hokum has done anything but demolish my arguments about the Pentagon and Flight 93! I've given up responding to his demands for evidence because he doesn't concede when I do. You too seem to have nothing to say about the engine being a couple of miles away and the bodywork even further, and they are the only parts of the plane seen anywhere. How about the Pentagon film with something that is anything but an airliner ?

A couple of pages back some wag was crowing about it being game set and match to Hokum: well I think I've just put a couple in the back of the net since then.Your argument about 93 has pieces of paper, I've got an engine and fuselage segment.My argument about the Pentagon has two films showing what really flew into the Pentagon, yours has the sad spectacle of Hokum trying to convince himself it's an airliner.

It's no good demanding evidence when no-one has responded to my assertions about the 93 parts.The parts sceptics posted in the first place.Nobody is even trying to convince me that's an airliner flying into the Pentagon.

Game over, methinks.
 
This thread should have been merged with one of the existing 911 threads when it started.

But now it has wandered off from NYC to the Pentagon, about which we also have an existing thread...
Pentagon 911 Conspiracy?
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... t=pentagon

How can anyone keep track of what's really new, or merely rehashed old, when threads start proliferating like bindweed? :evil:
 
Good point, but the other thread has been dormant for a while, and it seems that once a thread goes off the boil, it stays that way. I didn't trawl all through the 91 pages of it but there seemed to be a merciful absence of diehard sceptics. Missed out there then , didn't I?

I haven't got a source for the B66 engine pic:- it was around a lot not long after the event but I can't remember what books it was published in, and didn't even have a PC back then. Does anyone out there know of a book or a link? Would Hokum and Timble acknowledge it even if anybody did?
 
Since you can't remember where your imaginary book came from, I'm not going to acknowledge it.

Actually the other engine was found 300 yards away from Flight 93.... not miles. And the lake isn't as far away as the conspiracy sites claim, the 6 or 8 miles often quoted, is only correct if the debris travelled by road....

The engine wasn't dredged from the lake and all the organic debris was found in fairly close proximity to the impact site...

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Un ... _Flight_93

Oooo debris..

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Un ... 3_-_debris

That engine:
http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... e=7#roving

Claim: One of Flight 93's engines was found "at a considerable distance from the crash site," according to Lyle Szupinka, a state police officer on the scene who was quoted in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Offering no evidence, a posting on Rense.com claimed: "The main body of the engine ... was found miles away from the main wreckage site with damage comparable to that which a heat-seeking missile would do to an airliner."

FACT: Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... tml?page=8

Claim: "Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains," states a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article dated Sept. 13, 2001. "Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly 6 miles from the immediate crash scene." Commenting on reports that Indian Lake residents collected debris, Think AndAsk.com speculates: "On Sept. 10, 2001, a strong cold front pushed through the area, and behind it — winds blew northerly. Since Flight 93 crashed west-southwest of Indian Lake, it was impossible for debris to fly perpendicular to wind direction. ... The FBI lied." And the significance of widespread debris? Theorists claim the plane was breaking up before it crashed. TheForbiddenKnowledge.com states bluntly: "Without a doubt, Flight 93 was shot down."

FACT: Wallace Miller, Somerset County coroner, tells PM no body parts were found in Indian Lake. Human remains were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site. Paper and tiny scraps of sheetmetal, however, did land in the lake. "Very light debris will fly into the air, because of the concussion," says former National Transportation Safety Board investigator Matthew McCormick. Indian Lake is less than 1.5 miles southeast of the impact crater — not 6 miles — easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash. And the wind that day was northwesterly, at 9 to 12 mph, which means it was blowing from the northwest — toward Indian Lake.


Something odd, if you google "B66 engine" and 911, you get three hits, two are from this thread, the other is a motor parts site referring to a "toyata B66 engine" and a "porsche 911".

Obviously THEY have managed to block all references to the B66 engine from the entire internet...
 
Bigfoot73 said:
...I think it takes a bit more than half-hearted muddled spritual confusion to make someone kill themselves and hundreds more with them.....

Sucide bombings several times a week demonstrate that you're completely wrong about this. History provides evidence of wars fought over such stuff...


And apropos the Pentagon


FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
 
It was the fuselage section I said was dragged from the lake.
It was the distant engine that was found first and very widely reported in the media at the time.The 300 yard engine was on a site which claimed the black box was found 12 feet down in the landfill and I am somewhat reluctant to believe there was anything there but coaldust.Then there's the site with all the photos. Wow, thanks! That pic of a digger unearthing something round and bulky from about 18 inches down, maybe a wheel.How did that go belting into the ground at 500mph plus inside a wing also doing 500 plus and somehow get separated and completely trashed yet come to a stop only 18 inches down, with no sign of a wing? Why is the surface above it level and undisturbed?
Why is there a big patch of fuselage outer skin anywhere other than in the landfill? Why do none of the pics have specific identifications or records of locations?And why no pic of the engine if it's right there ?

As for the B66 engine: it isn't known by the tag "B66 engine." Did the search engine make the connection between it and the Porsche 911 or was that due to your search term?
 
Back
Top