Look At pictures from other airplane wrecks, and how could even an experianced pilot fly a jumbojet 6-10 feet off the ground flying at a minimum speed of 300 MPH
-explosives were heard in buildings even before the plane crashed.
A strange statement. Do you have any evidence for this?
If this is meant to be connected to the "controlled demolition" that conspiracy theorists fantasize about, I would point out that in a controlled demolition, the building falls down when the charges go off, not an hour later.
-molten steel at bottom of the buildings
There is no evidence for whatsoever that the metal in question was steel; nor, of course, is it a characteristic of controlled demolitions.
-rate at which they fell, seriously building 7 wasnt hit,
It was hit by debris, and it caught fire.
and it fell in exactly the same way.
You mean ... downwards?
buildings are made to be able to take a lot of resistance.
That was an odd sentence.
-employees having lots of evacuation practice procedures
Well duh. Evacuation practice is common in large buildings, and since terrorists had tried to target the WTC previously, it would seem prudent.
, and even interviews of survivors saying they heard lots of weird noises the weeks before it occurred
Evidence?
-a huge terrorist insurance taken out just 2 months before 911
You mean, when the buildings were purchased?
Of course the buildings were insured. This is normal practice.
-stock market predictions, where people put money on airlines failing at a much higher rate than usual. It shows someone knew prior to 911.
Al Qaeda, for example.
Now please explain to me scientifically, how it is possible for a 100 story building to fall that fast without using explosives to get rid of the resistance at the bottom and middle of the building.
There's this stuff called "gravity".
Also please tell me the evidence we have that linked Osama Bin Laden to 911.
Al Qaeda claimed responsibility. The hijackers left martyrdom videos. Their connections with al Qaeda have been proven. KSM admitted to planning 9/11 with OBL.
I've read the 911 commission report and its overall scientific bullshit. Anyone who has even taken a basic college physics class can figure this out.
But apparently they've all been bribed or intimidated into silence.
I Want to get other peoples thoughts on the 9-11 conspiracy. I am somewhat neutral but lean a little bit towards the conspiracy theory.
Why is it that people like you start off pretending to be "neutral" when you know that a minute later you're going to be reciting Conpiracy Theory dogma like it was Holy Writ and screaming with rage at anyone who dares to question it?
I also feel there is a 911 "issue". And many engineers, architects, scientist, etc, want a better investigation done because frankly the evidence for a controlled demolition is too much to just ignore.
Ah yes ... like all those lists of creationist scientists. Except that those are longer. Moreover, the signatories to the various "new investigation" petitions have said no more than that they just want that: a new investigation. Find me a petition where they say that this is because "the evidence for a controlled demolition is too much to just ignore".
---
Have you ever seen a controlled demolition?
Have you ever heard a controlled demolition?
If anything like that had happened, the evidence would indeed be "too much to just ignore". But it didn't.
I am not neutral on this, I'm on the side of a conspiracy. I don't think one guy in a cave thousands of miles away could orchestrate this type of act.
Yeah, it's like thinking that one guy in a bunker thousands of miles away could orchestrate the invasion of Russia. Except that that involved 4.5 million people instead of nineteen, and no-one, but no-one, claims that OBL had operational control.
Really, where is the difficulty here? Even as arguments from incredulity go, you seem to have precious little to be incredulous of. All Al Qaeda had to do was recruit the hijackers and give them their marching orders. Where exactly is the difficulty?
In summary, NEADS received notice of the hijacking nine minutes before it struck the North Tower. That nine minutes’ notice before impact was the most the military would receive of any of the four hijackings ... The first indication that the NORAD air defenders had of the second hijacked aircraft, United 175, came in a phone call from New York Center to NEADS at 9:03. The notice came at about the time the plane was hitting the South Tower ... NORAD heard nothing about the search for American 77. Instead, the NEADS air defenders heard renewed reports about a plane that no longer existed: American 11 ... NEADS first received a call about United 93 from the military liaison at Cleveland Center at 10:07. Unaware that the aircraft had already crashed, Cleveland passed to NEADS the aircraft’s last known latitude and longitude.
I guess that's why no-one has blamed NORAD for "fucking up".
Bush, Cheney and Rice, on national tv, said that NO admin ever predicted planes would be used as weapons ...
You do not quote these statements, but it sounds to me like they were covering their incompetence or negligence in not putting into place procedures to deal with it.
Maybe also they just didn't know about the anxieties of the Clinton administration when they made those statements --- did you?
In any case, it seems to me that if the government planned the attacks and then wished to shift the blame onto Al Qaeda, they would have taken the opposite line.
CNN reported that 2 years before the attacks NORAD conducted simulations with planes used as weapons, and one of the targets was, you guessed it, The World Trade Center - this was repoted on mainstream news.
Furthermore, on the cover of the 1997 FEMA Terroism Response Manual there is actually a picture of the Trade Centers with a bulls-eye on it!
Also, Operation "Mascal", conducted on Oct. 2000 simulated a plane crash into the Pentagon.
No one ever predicted planes could be used as weapons? BULLSHIT.
So, you have evidence that the intelligence community was (a) worried about terrorists using planes as missiles (b) worried about the WTC as a target ... and you're using this as evidence that no such thing happened?
Also, the director of Pakistani inteligence, (ISI), Mahmood Ahmed, ordered Omar Saeed Sheik to wire 100K to Mohammed Atta. This was also reported on CNN. However, no inquiry as to why General Ahmed ordered the money to be sent to Atta was ever conducted. - On the morning of 911 government officials were having breakfast with General Ahmed in Washington.
The 911 Commission deemed the financing of the attacks was "of little significance".
You're not painting a very clear picture. Bush ... had officials ... who had breakfast with a man ... who may have told another man ... to send money to another man ... whom conspiracy theorists claim is innocent.
Does that make Bush guilty? How about Kevin Bacon?
Finally, some of the hijackers are ALIVE - at least 6.
Then their behavior is most singular. They stand accused of an infamous mass-murder, and all they have to do to clear their names is prove that they're alive. Merely to come forward would automatically prove their innocence.
Why don't they do so? Why has no conspiracy theorist managed to locate them?
Oh yes, 'cos they're dead. I guess that's why the news organization that reported that they were alive later conceded that they were wrong.
Enjoy this video ...
I dragged the slidey thing forward to get to where Gage started talking, and the first words I heard out of his mouth were "into its own footprint".
I don't think I need to hear any more. Anyone who can be that wrong is scarcely to be taken as an authority.
... and the quote bellow it ...
"WMR has learned from a well-informed source ... WMR has been told ... It is now being reported ..."
Most enjoyable.
Moreover, your quote works against your own thesis. According to the allegations, NORAD claimed that they were prepared to meet such a threat but were lying 'cos really they weren't.
Weren't you the person who asserted that NORAD couldn't fuck up? Now you're producing (unsubstantiated) allegations that they did.
How this would prove that the government was behind 9/11, I don't know.
---
Tell me, are you familiar with the phrase "Gish Gallop"?
Or...like all those scientist 500 years ago trying to investigate the claims by the church.
Or like the creationist crazies. Which means that it's neither here nor there.
Currently 16648 have signed.
Those are citizens, not the "scientists, architects, and engineers" of whom you boasted. Hence you have failed to meet my challenge.
5. COLLAPSE OF WTC BUILDING 7: The unexplained and little-reported free-fall collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, which raises the possibility of an intentional demolition.
Saying "X raises the possibility of Y" is a much weaker statement than saying: "The evidence for Y is too much to just ignore". Hence even if these were scientists, architects, and engineers, this still would not fulfill the conditions I gave.
Yes, on 911.
Circular reason much?
A: You are a hippopotamus. B: Have you ever even seen a hippopotamus? A: Yes. I'm looking at one right now.
Why do the supposed "controlled demolitions" on 9/11 not look and sound like things which are known to be controlled demolitions? Why does B not look in the slightest like things which are known to be hippopotami?
Look at your video and look at tower 7 fall...who is ignoring what here, Dr.?
You are ignoring the fact that it does not look and sound like a controlled demolition, and also the logistical impossibility of wiring the building for such an event without anyone noticing, and also the fact that emergency personnel knew that it was unstable and liable to collapse, and also the seismic data, and also the fact that it had undergone structural damage and a large fire, so that we don't have to imagine unneccessary and implausible mechanisms to explain the collapse.
I have not claimed that "Al Qaeda", whatever that actually means, wasn't involved. I have also not claimed that Bush and Cheney planned the attacks.
Would you like to claim something?
No-one? I suggest you read the Petition.
OK, let me rephrase that. Since it is not part of the official story to claim that NORAD fucked up, your incredulity that they could have fucked up is not incredulity of the official story. It is agreement with it.
I don't know where you got that information from, but here's NORAD's timelines directly form them.
That's the same NORAD you were accusing of perjury, yes?
Well, taking their figures to be accurate, that gives them 19 minutes to deal with AA175, and 13 minutes to deal with flight 77.
Sorry, these statements are from live news interviews. You can search youtube if you like and listen to them. However, this was reported all over the mainstream media, I'm surprised you don't recall hearing them say this stuff.
I don't hang on their every word. I have a vague memory of Cheney saying something like that. Really, would it be to much to ask you to provide evidence for your own assertions?
Whether or not this has any bearing on your claims would depend on whether you ever actually get round to claiming anything.
I don't think they planned the attacks ...
What do you think? And how does the "controlled demolition" fit into it?
My post wasn't structured properly, since I was in a bit of a rush. I'm using it as evidence against the Bush, Cheney, Rice statements that NO administration had ever predicted planes could be used as missiles.
Yes, I know. But it's a two-edged sword --- the fact that the nature of the attacks was anticipated suggests that they were not implausible.
PAKISTANI ISI: The alleged connection of the Pakistani Interservices Intelligence Agency ("ISI") to financing the 9/11 plot, with its implications leading back to possible American connections in our intelligence agencies and other officials.
Oh look, some other people who have no idea what they're claiming.
Ok, tell you what, here's the proof that a major news network reported 4 of them alive (the BBC) Hijackers Alive, then you show me your evidence of them admiting they were wrong.
This is only true if you accept what the media has told you. What are they capable of? - Provide proof that connects OBL and Al-Qaeda to the 911 attacks - proof outside of the Bush/Cheney admin telling us it was OBL.
Al Qaeda told us it was Al Qaeda. They made videos about it. Complete with martyrdom videos made by the hijackers.
* At minute 2:48 Rice clearly states: "I don't think anyone could have predicted that they would use an airplane as a missile" - LIE
* At minute 2:56 Bush clearly states: "No one could have invisioned planes being flown into buildings" - LIE
* At minute 3:02 Cheney Says: "No operations involving what happened existed" - LIE
Why isn't Nebraska Man on this list?
In Dr. A's quote it says, which I'm assuming he got from an official source:
"The first indication that the NORAD air defenders had of the second hijacked aircraft, United 175, came in a phone call from New York Center to NEADS at 9:03." - LIE
Someone is wrong. You don't get to pick and choose who, nor accuse whoever is wrong of lying without evidence.
My source was the 9/11 Commission, who have more details, had access to more evidence, and present more evidence, including transcripts of who said what to whom.
However, I don't see why a few minutes here or there matter --- unless you believe that every small discrepancy is a sign of a vast conspiracy.
* Between the first tower hit, the report of flight 175 and the second tower being hit, a total of 22 minutes have passed.
* Between the first tower hit, the second tower hit and the Pentagon being hit, a total of 51 minutes passed.
This is a clear sign of someone in command fucking up.
Please use your hindsight to explain what should have been done. Assume that no-one involved had psychic powers.
Who was in command that day? - Cheney
He was? In what sense was he "in command"? What orders did he give?
There is plenty of evidence connecting General Ahmad to Omar Saeed Sheikh and Mohammad Atta.
Golly, it's almost like there was some secret Muslim conspiracy to crash planes into buildings. Thank you for uncovering it. The Pulitzer Prize is in the post.
The problem with the 911 "Consiparcy" is that it goes too far, implicating Bush and Cheney as the masterminds of the event and makes a mocking characterization of the evidence that points to deception. I'll admit I was having a little fun with the "controlled demolition" stuff - but putting that aside - there is a clear cover-up of a lot of information by the Bush/Cheney camp.
"Having a little fun", eh? You looked more like you were being wrong to me. Perhaps a few smileys next time, eh?
Howbeit, if you want a new investigation, I suggest that you spend less time having "fun" with the "controlled demolition" stuff. People will take you more seriously if you don't "have a little fun" by talking nonsense.
Between the first tower hit, the second tower hit and the Pentagon being hit, a total of 51 minutes passed.
This is a clear sign of someone in command fucking up. Who was in command that day? - Cheney
But the figure of 51 minutes has no more relevance to whether they could have prevented the Pentagon being hit than does Cheney's shoe size.
According to the timeline on which you are relying for your figures, the FAA notified NEADS that flight 77 had been hijacked at 09:24. The order to scramble F-16's was given the same minute --- fuck-up? The fighters were airborne six minutes later --- fuck-up? And seven minutes later the Pentagon was hit --- at which point the fighters were still 12 minutes flying time away, and couldn't have prevented it --- fuck-up?
Where is the fuck-up? And at what point did they phone Cheney and receive the wrong orders?
One video, that's all that exists. One video shown to us by our government.
No.
You asked for the videos of them saying it. That was a video of them saying it.
Concede and don't be a douche about it.
Yes, those statements were made. But why are they LIES rather than errors?
They do not have more details than NORAD's exact timelines.
They do, in fact, supply a much more detailed account than NORAD's bare-bones timeline.
You were wrong again, concede and don't be a douche about it.
Clearly one timeline is wrong. Personally, I am going to try to find out which.
A few minutes...?
You were off by 21 minutes, or rather, the 911 Commsion was off by 21 minutes - are you fuck'n serious that that is not a huge time difference...?
I wouldn't call that "huge", no.
What should have been done is the person posting to me, that gave me the wrong time frames, verified their source. That is all I was showing - that you and your source were wrong.
That is not an answer to my question.
You claim that NORAD fucked up.
What should they have done?
You have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, so would you care to suggest one thing that they should have done differently.
Are you following my argument, dude?
"What orders did he give"...? That's exactly what I'm saying needs to be investigated. According to your 911 Commision source of the timeframes, there was at least 1 thing they got wrong, the timeframes - did Cheney tell them that...?
What did he order? Yes, please tell me, because that's all I want to know.
If you don't know that, then on what basis do you claim that Cheney was "in command"?
It wasn't a Muslim conspiracy, unless you'd like to be the asshole who catagorizes the actions of one, or a few, to represent all of the Muslim faith?
It was a Muslim conspiracy. The Gunpowder Plot was a Catholic conspiracy. Oklahoma City was a right-wing conspiracy. Pointing these things out does not entail blaming all Muslims, Catholics, or right-wingers respectively.
The highlighted portions are complete bullshit - I don't know where you got that information from, but here's NORAD's timelines directly form them.
The apparent disparity between the two accounts of flight 77 are easily resolved by careful reading of the 9/11 Commission Report. Here's what it says in the report:
NORAD heard nothing about the search for American 77. Instead, the NEADS air defenders heard renewed reports about a plane that no longer existed: American 11.
At 9:21, NEADS received a report from the FAA:
FAA: Military, Boston Center. I just had a report that American 11 is still in the air, and it’s on its way towardsheading towards Washington. NEADS: Okay. American 11 is still in the air? FAA:Yes. NEADS: On its way towards Washington? FAA: That was anotherit was evidently another aircraft that hit the tower.That’s the latest report we have. NEADS: Okay. FAA: I’m going to try to confirm an ID for you, but I would assume he’s somewhere over, uh, either New Jersey or somewhere further south. NEADS: Okay. So American 11 isn’t the hijack at all then, right? FAA: No, he is a hijack. NEADS: HeAmerican 11 is a hijack? FAA: Yes. NEADS: And he’s heading into Washington? FAA: Yes. This could be a third aircraft.
The mention of a third aircraft was not a reference to American 77.There was confusion at that moment in the FAA.Two planes had struck the World Trade Center, and Boston Center had heard from FAA headquarters in Washington that American 11 was still airborne. We have been unable to identify the source of this mistaken FAA information.
The NEADS technician who took this call from the FAA immediately passed the word to the mission crew commander, who reported to the NEADS battle commander:
Mission Crew Commander, NEADS: Okay, uh, American Airlines is still airborne. Eleven, the first guy, he’s heading towards Washington. Okay? I think we need to scramble Langley right now.And I’m gonna take the fighters from Otis, try to chase this guy down if I can find him.
After consulting with NEADS command, the crew commander issued the order at 9:23: Okay . . . scramble Langley. Head them towards the Washington area. . . . If they’re there then we’ll run on them. . . .These guys are smart.
That order was processed and transmitted to Langley Air Force Base at 9:24. Radar data show the Langley fighters airborne at 9:30.
Compare NORAD's timeline:
American Flight 77 —Dulles enroute to Los Angeles FAA Notification to NEADS 0924 Fighter Scramble Order (Langley AFB, Hampton, Va. 2 F-16s) 0924 Fighters Airborne 0930 Airline Impact Time (Pentagon) 0937(estimated)
In short, the 9/11 Commission's times for the scramble order and the time the planes were airborne agree perfectly with the times provided by NORAD --- their point in saying that "NORAD heard nothing about the search for American 77" is that at that time NORAD thought they were looking for flight 11, which had already crashed.
---
I'll let you know if I can find out about flight 175.
The highlighted portions are complete bullshit - I don't know where you got that information from, but here's NORAD's timelines directly form them.
I've explained the apparent discrepancy between the two accounts of flight 77.
The differing accounts of flight 175 are also easily explained --- NORAD got it wrong, not the 9/11 Commission. Note that NORAD's timetable was released on 18th September 2001, when confusion still reigned and NORAD was overwhelmed by the initiation of the Noble Eagle effort.
The Commission had full access to the NEADS tapes. As do we. This article has the NEADS tapes --- not just transcripts, but the actual audio as well. Note that the first mention of a "possible second hijack" comes at 0903, just seconds before United 175 hit the WTC. NORAD had no time to respond.
It very well can be nonsense, but you'll have to explain why you accept the 911 Commissions timeline and reject NORAD's timeline.
The NORAD tapes, on which the 9/11 Commission's report was based, support the 9/11 Commission.
Here's some more tapes, again released by NORAD. Let us know if you, or any conspiracy theorist, can find anything in there which supports the timeline for United 175 that that NORAD released on 18th September.
Here's Shelly Miller of the FAA, the person responsible for assembling timelines, explaining (amongst other things) how they got it wrong about United 175.
Curiously enough, you started off by accusing NORAD of actual perjury. Yet presented with hard evidence that they did get at least one detail wrong, you defend them to the death --- because this is a detail you'd have liked them to be right about.
In addition, as has been pointed out to you, the NORAD timeline can't be right --- it amounts to a claim that the FAA informed them of the hijack of United 175 the moment it happened.
There are testimonies from the people working in both NORAD and NEADS that claim the NORAD timelines are the correct ones.
I did not, I started off by saying that they don't fuck up like that.
I refer you to your first post on this thread, post #41, where you wrote:
The 9/11 Commission documents about the perjury of NORAD and FAA officials corroborates the concerns expressed by the retired military officers about the true version of events on 9/11.
Here you are taking the 9/11 Commission to be in the right and accusing NORAD, not just of accidental error, but of actual perjury. But when you want NORAD to be right about something and the Commission to be wrong, then suddenly the Commission are part of a big conspiratorial cover-up, and what NORAD says is gospel.
For 2 years NORAD held to those timelines.
Evidence?
All we've looked at so far is a timeline that NORAD rushed out a week after the event.
Now "tapes" brought out by the FAA claim differently - convinently.
How is it "convenient" for the FAA to release tapes proving that they and NORAD got it wrong? How is it "convenient" for NORAD to turn over to the Commission, and the public, tapes showing that they got it wrong?
So someone is lying here.
Or wrong. I refer you again to "Nebraska Man" --- is that a proof that the Evil Evil-utionists are enmeshed in a conspiracy of lies, as creationists claim? Or was it an honest mistake?
But, if they didn't lie, if their timelines were the correct ones, then the FAA has been used as the scapegoat, tapes have been edited to sound a certain way (which is not hard to do) ...
Yes, you can imagine that any piece of evidence that doesn't fit your hypothesis has been faked. So can creationists. But if we enter into that sort of epistemological nightmare, then what is there left for us to discuss?
Perhaps 9/11 was perpetrated by Freemasons using flying saucers. If we discount all the evidence to the contrary as a product of the Masonic conspiracy ... then we have made this hypothesis completely unfalsifiable. Hooray!
However, as a rebuttal, I would point out that the tapes you are disputing came from NORAD. And if they had been tampered with in any way, then NORAD could have said so.
And finally, why would anyone bother to lie? We're talking about a discrepancy of 19 minutes. Again, this is creationist thinking: the one little anomaly or discrepancy that proves the huge conspiracy.
I'll accept your point that they were just covering up their mistakes, fine, but they lied to Congress, to the Commission, and to the general public for 2-3 years, is that not enough to declair that they commited perjury?
First, show that they lied, rather than making a mistake.
Second, show that they did it for two years.
So far, the only statement we've seen from them about the timeline was released on 18th Spetember, 2001.
The overall end result was the convenient part. It showed what they wanted it to show, IMO.
The tapes showed that they were wrong.
If they were deliberately lying, why would they want to show that they were wrong?
They had their own tapes, they had access to it, HOWEVER, they never deviated from the timelines they gave on 9/18/01.
Really? When did they repeat the claims they made on the 18th?
There was planty of time to review everything the Commission was reviewing and give the right timelines on their own. But they didn't, for 2-3 years they held to the timelines they gave on 9/18 and that's what I question...why?
Maybe they didn't know that they'd made a mistake in the first place. In fact, if it was a mistake, then by definition they didn't know that they made it in the first place.
Do you do everything twice just to double-check?
However, my point, that NORAD lied, falls apart IF NORAD wasn't lying about those timelines, and was forced to change their original timelines for reasons that are beyond my knowledge.
Or if they made a mistake.
---
Now, your turn to come up with a plausible hypothesis. NORAD's timeline conflicts with the facts in one detail, by a matter of a mere 19 minutes. They turned over, to the public and the 9/11 Commission, the tapes that proved that they were wrong about this one detail.
Please try to provide a plausible motivation for them to intentionally falsify this one thing, and then to provide everyone with evidence that they were wrong.
™ Version 4.2
