9/11: The September 11th Attacks

[Jerry_B]

I didn't remember this video being discussed. But it is true that after tens of pages of discussion, we remain with the same unanswered questions. And notably the paradoxical situation that the Boeing 757 caused both too few and too much damage.

You perhaps need to re-read the relevant Pentagon thread here at the FTMB.

 

[kamalktk]

But we are left with another mystery : walls were supposed to be reinforced. Yet, it seems they were more like butter : how could the aircraft drill a hole in at least three rings of the Pentagon ?

Again, we have covered this in depth before. I suggest you read the previous thread(s) where we went over this, at length. That will save alot of time on rehashing things.

I didn't remember this video being discussed. But it is true that after tens of pages of discussion, we remain with the same unanswered questions. And notably the paradoxical situation that the Boeing 757 caused both too few and too much damage.

So either the video represents approximately what would happen when a 757 is flown into the Pentagon, or you can't predict how/if the WTC would fall because no 757's have been flown into skyscrapers before or since. So please either stop with the "must have been controlled demo because it looked like it", or stop with the "757 would cause more damage to the Pentagon", because they are contradictory. You can't say there's no evidence a 757 would cause that damage to the Pentagon and then they controlled demo of WTC, because there's also no evidence of what a 757 into a skyscraper would do (or how a skyscraper reacts to having large chunks of another skyscraper fall onto it).

I see here other circular arguments, but I wanted to state that dissenters didn't issue any contradictory claims on the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. They have always said that in both cases, an airliner would cause significant damages to the front, and would not penetrate inside very far (another innacuracy : with the Deutsche Bank building we have an example of a skyscraper having large chunks of another skyscraper fall onto it).

Yes, the circular argument comes from the denial/truther whatever term you choose side.

There was no precedent for what happened. 757's hit the WTC, both (presumably near identical designs) fell as they did. WTC 7 and Deutshe Bank, different designs with different damage (so our sample size for that is two at best, not enough to draw any conclusion). Pentagon, once again no precedent.

We know 757's flew into these buildings/ chunks of other buildings fell on them. Just because they were not damaged in the way some people said they "should", does not mean that it didn't happened that way in real life. It's rather hard to test for, and no one's going to be doing actual full scale tests.

However, barring constructing fifty or so full scale models and flying a like number of 757's into them, we will always lack the sample size to test whether they "should" be damaged differently. We must go by what we saw, not what we think "should happen".

I'm reminded of the old story that the bumblebee "shouldn't be able to fly". Yet it does. The buildings "shouldn't" be damaged like they were, but they were.

 

[waitew]

t NORAD was tracking & knew FL 175,77 &93 were WAY off course,not in radio contact & beyond a reasonable doubt hijacked!

Incorrect. Incapacitation of flight crew via illness, faulty fresh air line into cockpit etc.

Is that so? Well,lets test your logic and see how well it stands up. First off incidence like the Payne Steward one you site from 1999 are extremely rare (I'd like to see you site another one). But so too are hijackings in US air space. In fact there hadn't been a hijacking in 30 years and none of the ATC's involved that day had ever worked one before.
It's true when flight 11 first went off course and failed to respond on radio that it could have been incapacitation,but they didn't think that very long! At 8:24 they heard the hijackers over the radio,"We have some planes",etc,etc) from that point on they KNEW they were dealing with a hijacking and NOTHING else.
Now when the second plane that morning goes off course and silent,what are the odds that it's something other than a hijacking? What about the third one? still reasonable to believe it something other than a hijacking? the fourth one? still reasonable to think it's incapacitation?
Also,I'd like to remind you that these planes didn't simply go off course (fail to make a turn like Payne Stewards) these planes REVERSED direction and headed back the way they came! The knew from that alone that the pilot of those planes was NOT incapacitated ! These plane were hijacked BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

 

[kamalktk]

t NORAD was tracking & knew FL 175,77 &93 were WAY off course,not in radio contact & beyond a reasonable doubt hijacked!

Incorrect. Incapacitation of flight crew via illness, faulty fresh air line into cockpit etc.

Is that so? Well,lets test your logic and see how well it stands up. First off incidence like the Payne Steward one you site from 1999 are extremely rare (I'd like to see you site another one). But so too are hijackings in US air space.

Ok, I will cite others. I will cite the 67 scrambles in the 10 months from September 2000 to June 2001. (the webpage marks in the relevant part)
http://www.wanttoknow.info/020812ap

You can find this same statement on many other sites.

 

[waitew]

t NORAD was tracking & knew FL 175,77 &93 were WAY off course,not in radio contact & beyond a reasonable doubt hijacked!

Incorrect. Incapacitation of flight crew via illness, faulty fresh air line into cockpit etc.

Is that so? Well,lets test your logic and see how well it stands up. First off incidence like the Payne Steward one you site from 1999 are extremely rare (I'd like to see you site another one). But so too are hijackings in US air space.

Ok, I will cite others. I will cite the 67 scrambles in the 10 months from September 2000 to June 2001. (the webpage marks in the relevant part)
http://www.wanttoknow.info/020812ap

You can find this same statement on many other sites.

How many of those 67 scrambles were for incapacitation of the flight crew like the Payne Steward incidence (which is what I actually asked for other examples of)?

 

[kamalktk]

t NORAD was tracking & knew FL 175,77 &93 were WAY off course,not in radio contact & beyond a reasonable doubt hijacked!

Incorrect. Incapacitation of flight crew via illness, faulty fresh air line into cockpit etc.

Is that so? Well,lets test your logic and see how well it stands up. First off incidence like the Payne Steward one you site from 1999 are extremely rare (I'd like to see you site another one). But so too are hijackings in US air space.

Ok, I will cite others. I will cite the 67 scrambles in the 10 months from September 2000 to June 2001. (the webpage marks in the relevant part)
http://www.wanttoknow.info/020812ap

You can find this same statement on many other sites.

How many of those 67 scrambles were for incapacitation of the flight crew like the Payne Steward incidence (which is what I actually asked for other examples of)?

It doesn't actually matter, because I've shown they do scramble for non-responsive pilots. The alternative would be that they scrambled for Payne Stewart's plane in 1999 because they knew about 9/11 and needed to have an example of them scrambling for non-responsive planes in order to allay suspicion. Do you think that's the case, that the Payne Stewart plane response was part of the conspiracy?

 

[waitew]

On 911 they knew those planes were hijacked,only hijacked and nothing but hijacked beyond a reasonable doubt as soon as they turned round and headed back in the direction from which they came.

 

[kamalktk]

On 911 they knew those planes were hijacked,only hijacked and nothing but hijacked beyond a reasonable doubt as soon as they turned round and headed back in the direction from which they came.

You've returned to your original point, which I've already debunked. As further evidence I cite the fact there hadn't been a notable hijacking in US airspace since 1978. So there hadn't been one in 23 years, making it more unlikely that the first thought would be "hijack"
(you can start here and scroll up for a list of hijackings worldwide)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_aircraft_hijackings#1990s

 

[George_millett]

On 911 they knew those planes were hijacked,only hijacked and nothing but hijacked beyond a reasonable doubt as soon as they turned round and headed back in the direction from which they came.

Are you seriously trying to claim that Hijacking is the only reason why a plane would do a 180 and attempt to return to its original departure point??

Captain Sullenberger and multiple other pilots would be able to disagree with you on that one.

Even discounting Bird strikes, weather issues, equipment failures, medical emergencies can all cause an aircraft to deviate from its intended course some of which would render the pilots and passengers unable to communicate any issues to people not on the plane.

 

[waitew]

On 911 they knew those planes were hijacked,only hijacked and nothing but hijacked beyond a reasonable doubt as soon as they turned round and headed back in the direction from which they came.

Are you seriously trying to claim that Hijacking is the only reason why a plane would do a 180 and attempt to return to its original departure point??

Under the circumstances of that day,YES! Let me be more precise. As soon as the planes did a 180 AND they heard over the radio (they knew it was working) the hijackers""we have some planes"Etc. Yes,absolutely. Now,once the 1st one had been hijacked (very rare remember?Not since 1978--Er I mean just a few minutes ago.) The odds of the others being anything other than a hijacking is astronomically small. Sorts of kills any arguments you might make about the other planes.

 

[WhistlingJack]

Thread re-opened.

The penultimate post (and the post after which quoted it) has been removed as it directly accused a named individual of complicity in the deaths of thousands of people.

Without substantiative, legal, proof, any post which accuses an individual of any such action, or a criminal act, cannot be allowed to stand on this board: if a poster is determined to propagate their version of 'the truth', not only on this thread, but on any thread on the FTMB, then please feel free to do so on your own webspace and to fund your own defence of any subsequent legal action.

In future, any poster who puts the mag at threat of a libel suit by posting similar material will be disciplined appropriately.

 

[waitew]

What is your point, exactly? And if 9/11 was an inside job, who ordered it? Who organised it and set it up? Any proof of that?

I tried to answer your question,Jerry,but I'm afraid they wont permit it. So,please don't ask me again. Now I'm sure had the person at whom I was pointing the finger been Muslim (KSM,Bin Laden Etc.) then naming names would have been QUITE OK! But such is the nature of a police state.
Personally,I wish they would sue me for libel. Anyone remember what happened when Oscar Wilde tried? What's the defence again? that's right..the TRUTH.

 

[stu neville]

I tried to answer your question,Jerry,but I'm afraid they wont permit it. So,please don't ask me again. Now I'm sure had the person at whom I was pointing the finger been Muslim (KSM,Bin Laden Etc.) then naming names would have been QUITE OK! But such is the nature of a police state.

Oh God yeah. Expecting the Illuminati cheque any day now.

Don't libel people on here. Whatever their faith. You can get as tin-foily and woo as you want re theories, but if you want to name people not only living but likely to take great exception to (by default) unfounded accusations, then as WJ said two posts ago, feel free to set up your own webspace upon which you can slander, libel and generally accuse whomever you want: just don't do it on our time.

PS - Bin Laden said he did it, and is now dead. Not a strong litigatory risk.

 

[Analogue Boy]

PS - Bin Laden said he did it, and is now dead. Not a strong litigatory risk.

Hmmmmm. Is he now? Hmmmmm.

 

[ramonmercado]

PS - Bin Laden said he did it, and is now dead. Not a strong litigatory risk.

Hmmmmm. Is he now? Hmmmmm.

Hes running a dairy farm in County Tipperary. es a milk sheik now.

 

[Mythopoeika]

PS - Bin Laden said he did it, and is now dead. Not a strong litigatory risk.

Hmmmmm. Is he now? Hmmmmm.

Hes running a dairy farm in County Tipperary. es a milk sheik now.

Changed his name to O'sama.

 

[Sergeant_Pluck]

It always amazed me that OBL first claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks in a 2004 video.

Now, if it was me and I'd been behind the most 'successful' terrorist attacks in history against my hated enemy, believe me, the whole goddamn world would have known about it by sundown on 9/11. I'd've been jumping up and down, screaming it from the rooftops.

It's like cheating on your wife - if she keeps accusing you of doing it for years and years, you may as well end up doing it, or at least admitting it, even if it is falsely. I don't know who was responsible for 9/11 - I can scarcely credit it was a home-grown job (although the US have near-form for that too), but I am tempted to think OBL was a convenient scapegoat. As for him being dead, I think he's been dead a lot longer than since they supposedly killed him.

Interestingly enough, while watching the footage on TV that day, I said to the wife: Saddam Hussein will end up paying for this somehow.

 

[ramonmercado]

I googled Irish farmer muslim and got this!

 

[Mythopoeika]

 

[Mythopoeika]

My money goes on LIHOP.

Lubbock International House of Prayer?

 

[stu neville]

Bin Laden said he did it

Did he, now?

ISTR that the alleged 'confession' was slightly more ambiguous than that. Can post link to transcript of VT if you like.

BTW I don't doubt al-Qaeda were behind 9/11. My money goes on LIHOP.

Hello Garrick! Long time no see .

To be honest, I've just been lazy on that front - I accepted that a VT of a bloke speaking Arabic on the News at Ten was saying what the News at Ten said he was saying - i.e. "It's a fair cop, guv, it was me and that" or words to that effect. So yes, would like a transcript link, please.

As for LIHOP, yes, I go along with that. I've certainly believed (and said all along) that it was a genuine Al Qaeda attack, and that Bush used it as a way of not only giving him an excuse for his middle-Eastern adventures, but also invoking patriotism to shore up his popularity, given that he'd been elected in the most dubious of circumstances (usual plausible deniability clauses apply).

No need for thermite, CGI, etc. Just a few people looking the other way, and as a result no need for thousands of people having to keep shtum, either.

 

[Quake42]

I've certainly believed (and said all along) that it was a genuine Al Qaeda attack, and that Bush used it as a way of not only giving him an excuse for his middle-Eastern adventures, but also invoking patriotism to shore up his popularity, given that he'd been elected in the most dubious of circumstances

That's certainly true - but it's several steps beyond to claim that the fact that the attacks worked out well for the Bush administration means that a deliberate decision was taken to allow them to happen.

I still tend to opt for the cock up (or multiple cock up) theory myself; a combination of data overload, poor information sharing, inter-agency rivalry and crap airport security.

 

[Sergeant_Pluck]

it's several steps beyond to claim that the fact that the attacks worked out well for the Bush administration means that a deliberate decision was taken to allow them to happen.

Oh, I dunno. The cause/effect aspect of this was pretty obvious. i.e. if we are attacked, we can go in and f*ck up someone we hate.

Let's not forget Operation Northwoods in the 60s - a plan to commit various terrorist attacks on US soil and blame them on the Cubans, and therefore invade Cuba and stop those pesky Russkies from getting a foothold.

Off the top of my head, I think history will show a hundred different Machiavellian examples where a state has a. allowed an attack on itself in order to retaliate exponentially, or b. attack itself in order to blame someone else and then retaliate exponentially.

Edit: typos.

 

[stu neville]

That's certainly true - but it's several steps beyond to claim that the fact that the attacks worked out well for the Bush administration means that a deliberate decision was taken to allow them to happen.

Bush certainly capitalised on it. Whether or not he had prior knowledge is another matter, I agree.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Oh, I dunno. The cause/effect aspect of this was pretty obvious. i.e. if we are attacked, we can go in and f*ck up someone we hate.

Let's not forget Operation Northwoods in the 60s - a plan to commit various terrorist attcaks on US soil and blame them on the Cubans, and therefore invade Cuba and stop those pesky Russkies from getting a foothold.

Off he top of my head, I think history will show a hundred different Machiavellian examples where a state has a. allowed an attack on itself in order to retaliate exponentially, or b. attack itself in order to blame someone else and then retaliate exponentially.

Let's not also forget that had the Taliban extradited Bin Laden in the wake of the attacks - which they were obliged to do even before 9/11 - then no invasion would have been possible. It would have left the Bush administration searching around for another terrorist spectacular to hitch their wagon to in order to invade Afghanistan.

 

[Analis]

But then, they couldn't rely on the protection provided by the publicization of their claims, and could end with a bullett in their head soon.
And I doubt that anybody would be given witness protection or immunity in the case of such major crimes. And I don't believe that even if that were the case, anybody could trust a witness protection, given that people at high levels would be involved.

That sounds like guesswork.

But your claims that there woud inevitably be whistleblowers from the inside are themselves guesswork. I intended to show that they are all disputable, and they are indeed. The motives I gave for their absence are plausible.

It doesn't answer the question. Your stance is that no whistleblower involved in the 911 crimes have surfaced because nobody was involved. You took the case of people who came forward with their supposed involvment in the storage of crashed flying saucers at Area 51, or the retrieval of one at Roswell. By inference, it means that you held these events as real. But you probably don't ; so you can deduce nothing from this comparison.

Remember that we're dealing with conspiracy theories. At the present time, those that deal with 9/11 are no more real than those that deal with Area 51, Roswell, etc..

Which is exactely why kamalkt's argument is useless, which is my point. You should have said that to him.

People who claim involvment with Roswell, Area 51 or reptilian Illuminati are probably doing it just for spreading confusion.

More guesswork.

There has already been discussion around the existence of many crashed saucers whistleblowers on other threads.
But your remark doesn't adress the question I had asked. It may seem a minor aside question, and it is in my opinion indeed minor, but it remains : what explains this difference ?

 

[Analis]

Off the top of my head, I think history will show a hundred different Machiavellian examples where a state has a. allowed an attack on itself in order to retaliate exponentially, or b. attack itself in order to blame someone else and then retaliate exponentially.

False flag attacks of all kinds are indeed not aberrations, isolated incidents, but are probably very common, much more than usually guessed. Author of Ben Gurion's Scandals Naeim Giladi provided evidence that the Mossad and the Haganah bombed synagogues in Iraq and other Arab countries in the early 50s to cause Arab jews to flee. We've seen recently other examples in Kosovo, probably in Sarajevo, last year in Lybia. Currently, we're seeing a huge scale example with Syria.

 

[Analis]

As for LIHOP, yes, I go along with that. I've certainly believed (and said all along) that it was a genuine Al Qaeda attack, and that Bush used it as a way of not only giving him an excuse for his middle-Eastern adventures, but also invoking patriotism to shore up his popularity, given that he'd been elected in the most dubious of circumstances (usual plausible deniability clauses apply).

No need for thermite, CGI, etc. Just a few people looking the other way, and as a result no need for thousands of people having to keep shtum, either.

Inside job begins as soon as they looked the other way, to allow the attacks to be conducted. The rest, indeed is relatively less important. LIHOP, HIHOP or MIHOP, what really matters is that US insiders were involved.

 

[ramonmercado]

Off the top of my head, I think history will show a hundred different Machiavellian examples where a state has a. allowed an attack on itself in order to retaliate exponentially, or b. attack itself in order to blame someone else and then retaliate exponentially.

False flag attacks of all kinds are indeed not aberrations, isolated incidents, but are probably very common, much more than usually guessed. Author of Ben Gurion's Scandals Naeim Giladi provided evidence that the Mossad and the Haganah bombed synagogues in Iraq and other Arab countries in the early 50s to cause Arab jews to flee. We've seen recently other examples in Kosovo, probably in Sarajevo, last year in Lybia. Currently, we're seeing a huge scale example with Syria.

Thanks for the Giladi link. I wasn't aware of these particular false flag operations.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Off the top of my head, I think history will show a hundred different Machiavellian examples where a state has a. allowed an attack on itself in order to retaliate exponentially, or b. attack itself in order to blame someone else and then retaliate exponentially.

False flag attacks of all kinds are indeed not aberrations, isolated incidents, but are probably very common, much more than usually guessed. Author of Ben Gurion's Scandals Naeim Giladi provided evidence that the Mossad and the Haganah bombed synagogues in Iraq and other Arab countries in the early 50s to cause Arab jews to flee. We've seen recently other examples in Kosovo, probably in Sarajevo, last year in Lybia. Currently, we're seeing a huge scale example with Syria.

Are examples of such attacks being carried out in countries with a free media so common though? Countries where access to information itself is not restricted by distance, military embedding, censorship and so on? Also, are there examples where so many civilians would be required to assist or at least turn a blind eye?