Wow, no 9/11 conspiracy threads?

[iman]

Is there a ban on that or something? If so, sorry moderators - I didn't know.

Anyways - I'm no conspiracy nut, but there were some weird coincidences that happened w/ 9-11. I may not have all my facts right, and I'm not here to LEARN from you guys, not propound some theory. So, here's what I remember off the top of my head:

I remember hearing that 1000 or so bodies of the WTC victims were completely annihilated to the point where we will never be identifiy the remains even using DNA analysis. So, if bodies were so badly burned, and paper burns much more easily than bodies, then how the hell did Atta's passport survive the inferno?

Second, it took well over a year to clear all the rubble away, how did we find PAPER on the ground just two days or so after the event? Isn't it miraculous that such important pieces of evidence just happened to be sitting right on top of ALL that rubble?

Third, how were we able to identify the papers that belonged to the terrorists? After all, there was no bomb on board the flight. You couldn't do forensic testing to see what was in the suitcase w/ the explosives - all the stuff from the plane was the same. How much paper had to have fallen from the WORLD FUCKING TRADE CENTER? How many documents? And you can pick out the exact one or two or three that are linked to the bad guys? How the hell do you trace them back to the terrorists?

Oh-back to the burned up thing. I think the back boxes were destroyed. That's damning evidence, itself, of a cospiracy - but even if you admit that it's possible - how could METAL boxes designed to survive the severest of crashes be annihilated and PAPER not burn up? It just doesn't make sense.

Fourth, somehow the bags that Atta checked onto the flight didn't make it, and we found some useful info in there. First, that seems to be a huge coincidence - in itself conspiracy theory material. More importantly, why the fuck would someone check bags onto a flight when they KNEW they were going to hijack it and crash it into a building? It just doesn't make any sense.

There's lots and lots more: how did we get the terrorists' names so fast? Why carry airline manuals - were they learning to fly the planes while waiting at the gate? I've heard some stuff about the debris pattern of the flight that crashed in Penn that doesn't add up to a crash landing. There's some stuff floating around that the plane that crashed into the pentagon made some really sharp maneuvers that most Air Force pilots couldn't execute, but the pilot who supposedly flew that plane was described as "dumb and dumber" by his flight trainer in New Mexico, or wherever.

Anyways, just wanted to put this out there. I'm sure some of my facts are wrong. I'd be happy to have someone correct me. I'm not looking for a debate, but a discussion/dialogue. I realize this is a touchy issue, and I hope I haven't said anything offensive.

[Zander]

Well, I'm not really sure how much of a conspiricay it might be; it's not like th emoon where we just have pictures, people actually saw the planes ram into the buildings.

And maybe the passport they have shown is just a copy of what it was.

And it was prolly pretty easy to pick out who were the terrorists by just looking at the names on the flight and looking at who's names sound Arab and checking their backgrounds immedietley.

[Zander]

However, the conspiracy that the Bush administration planned this to boost approval is another story.....

[iman]

Right, I'm not saying that 9/11 never happened. It's not a conspiracy in that sense. Maybe "conspiracy" is the wrong word altogether - but "cover-up" is even less to the point, so we'll have to use conspiracy.

There are reports that the airforce was specifically told to stand down, and would have normally reacted quickly to the first crash. There are reports of some companies telling their employees not to come into work that day. I'm saying, at the very least, that this government used the attack to boost approval. I'm also saying that shit like the passport, the surveillance photos, the flight manuals, the instructions on what to do to prepare (instructions written, by the way, in absolutely horrible arabic, by someone obviously not acquanted well with the Koran - which makes no sense for a group of Saudi religious fanatics) were planted to pin the blame on people who we wanted to blame.

(remember, when we went into Afghanistan, Bush and Blair refused to show ANY evidence that Al-Quaeda was linked to the attack. Blair, I remember, said something like: I've seen the evidence from the CIA, and I'm certain that Al-quaeda was involved, but we'll only show the public the evidence after the war." Well - we've NEVER seen that evidence - the evidence that so clearly, in Blair's mind, justified the war. What we HAVE seen, is a videotape found during the war with Afghanistan - one that is a bit too damning, and was a bit too convenient an "out" in my mind. If Al-quaeda is such a highly trained, highly organized network with such sophisticated communications and security network, how the hell did they leave something like that videotape lying around when they KNEW the American's were coming to that camp? Just sounds a bit too convenient to me that we'd find a video like that lying about. If any of you have read about what the CIA did in Iran - facts that the CIA does not deny - like paying people to riot on the streets, planting damning documents, starting and propogating horrible rumors, inciting violence and killing, etc. etc, etc. then you'll know that making that video would not at all be out of character for the CIA).

It might be possible that our (the U.S.) government knew what was going to happen and allowed it to happen. I'd consider that as being probable. As to whether the U.S. government was somehow involved in planning/executing . . . that's WAY beyond where I want to go with this. Heck, I'm not even sure if I have all the above facts right.

I live in NYC. I'm well aware that the towers aren't there anymore. I'm just saying that some suspicious shit went down shortly afterwards.

[Crack]

Originally posted by Zander
However, the conspiracy that the Bush administration planned this to boost approval is another story.....

I think it's a pretty well know fact that anything that an american president does, or has his administration do will eventually be public knowledge eventually. If it ever does surface that President Bush, or his administration planned, or even knew about this event he and all involved would be seen as no better tham serial killers and mass murderers... Why would anyone risk this to "Boost aproval" is obsene to even consider...

[opackfan]

Originally posted by crackprogram
I think it's a pretty well know fact that anything that an american president does, or has his administration do will eventually be public knowledge eventually. If it ever does surface that President Bush, or his administration planned, or even knew about this event he and all involved would be seen as no better tham serial killers and mass murderers... Why would anyone risk this to "Boost aproval" is obsene to even consider...

I think the words you are looking for are high treason

[Zander]

It's been said Pearl Harbor could have also been prevented, but FDR wanted it so people would get all riled up to get into the war....

[MSD]

There was a conspiracy. The US Government didn't directly kill our people, they indirectly killed them, let them die through gross negligence and incompetence. This was a terrorist attack that turned out a lot worse than it should have. Here's my list of what seems to have been covered up:

1: The jet fuel burning would not have heated the steel to the point that the towers would have collapsed, especially in the tower where the plane took out a corner, barely grazed the center column, and expended most of the fuel in a fireball. The terrorists exploited our piss-poor security, the sort that enabled the attack to occur, and planted explosives in the towers beforehand.

2: I want to know why the fuck the president showed no emotional reaction after given news of the attack, and continued to show no sign of nervousness whatsoever for the half hour he spent in the elementary school classroom after being informed of the attack. The official version of events surrounding the president's whereabouts and location of his staff members at the time do not correspond with actual observations and schedued events. On top of this, the president took the irresponsible action of remaining in a public place under several flight paths in a publicized event while hijacked planes were still in the air.

3: Flight 93 was shot down. There is no other logical explanation for the charred engine found miles away from any other debris from the plane, or the eyewitness accounts of USAF jets shadowing the plane and allegedly firing on it. It doesn't bother me that it was shot down, it bothers me that the white house has refused to answer any questions about it, refused to acknowledge that they saved hundreds of lives by creating a small tragedy to avert a larger one (a crash into the White House, Congress, maybe another NY landmark, or another major building, possibly the president's location.)

4: What was the "mystery object" that "chased" one of the planes as it struct the tower, and flew past, landing off camera. Was it a missile? Some other unidentified object? Did they try to shoot it down last second to spread the impact and prevent critical structural damage to the tower?

5: Why, after numerous memos, foreign intelligence reports, direct warnings, did we seem so clueless? Was the plot uncovered and allowed to be carried out to justify war?

[balderdash111]

This thread is laughable (in my opinion).

An awful lot of this "evidence" can be readily explained.

Plus, people seem to be making up facts to fit a theory. Jet fuel not doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel? You have some data to back that up? Did you account for the tons of plastic and other flammable materials in the building adding to the heat?

How did passports survive the fire when bodies were burned beyond recognition? Did you consider the fact that significant airplane debris was thrown clear of the building, while people who worked there were stuck in the flames for over an hour?

Look, folks, there have been multiple, massive reports on 9-11, by government and non-government sources (engineers and architects have been studying why the buildings collapsed, for example, while the government has been studying why intelligence didn't pick up the attack earlier). If there were flaws in the analysis, these would have been caught by far more credible sources than those who spout the conspiracy nonsense.

And, to cut off the old stand-by that the mainstream media doesn't report the story b/c it's controlled by the corporations (GE, etc) that benefit from the resulting increased defense spending, I say this: balderdash! Do you really think that some editor is suppressing stories like this? And even if he/she were, do you really think that a journalist who had evidence of the conspiracy would say "oh well, my editor won't let me publish. I guess the truth will remain hidden"?

Ockham's (sp?) razor, people. Use it.


And MySelfDestruct - can you point to documentation of any of the facts you cite in points 2-5?

on point 2: what information do you have that indicates the president's reported locations do not match the observed facts?

On point 3: what charred engine? what eyewitnesses?

on point 4: what mystery object?

on point 5: what warnings? what direct evidence? faced with reports that terrorists might use planes (among myriad other reports and threats, I might add), what do you suggest the government should have done? Shut down air traffic for the indefinite future?

[Rodney]

Very few people talk about this -- and that's what makes it scary -- but the premiere episode of the X-Files spin-off "The Lone Gunmen" involved thwarting a conspiracy to ram an airliner into the World Trade Center and blame it on terrorists -- thus stoking the careers of the intelligence agencies which were being cut because of the end of the cold war. The show ran six months before 9/11 on national TV, and nobody ever said a thing about it in the national media -- like I said, the silence was the scary part.

[iman]

balderdash:

ockam's razor: If it takes over a year to remove debris from a site, what are the chances that the exact info you need will turn up two days into the search?

ockam's razor: If there is no forensic evidence to link debris back to a bomb, how can one positively identify the debris as belonging to terrorists? All the debris from the plane and from the tower would be EXACTLY the same, and nobody would be able to tell which passport came from bad guys and which one from a good guy. Remember, the last major terrorist incident in the US was carried out by white guys (Oklahoma city). The unabomber was a white guy. The guys at ruby ridge were white. There are plenty of white militants in this country who could have carried out the attack.

Ockam's Razor: why the hell would a terrorist pack a bag and check it in for a suicide trip? Why would he put anything personal in the bag - a bag that's just going to be destroyed? The government would have us believe that these guys were highly trained professionals, so why would they fuck up like that?

You can make up lots of hypotheticals to answer those, but there is a simpler answer: Somebody made up all the evidence and the guys blamed for the attack weren't the guys who did it. Also, remember that Bush never allowed the public to see the incontrovertible evidence that linked Al-quaeda to the attacks - and we've STILL not seen that evidence.

Simple answer: The shit linking the 19 hijackers to the attacks was made up.

Also, crackprogram - there's lots and lots of shit that past presidents have done that we'll never ever find out about. Nixon's tapes, the iran-contra affair, cuban missle crisis. Shit, I bet there are sealed records somewhere from the war of 1812 that we'll never see because of national security reasons. Also, I'm pretty sure Bush has passed some exectutive orders to make it EVEN harder to access presidential records after the president has left office. The public has never been able to access anything to do with national security, and soon we won't be able to access much at all.

[Ustwo]

Tinfoil hats for everyone!

Can you possibly imagine the number of people involved to execute and then cover up something of this magnitude?

Originally posted by iman

balderdash:

ockam's razor: If it takes over a year to remove debris from a site, what are the chances that the exact info you need will turn up two days into the search?

They also have security videos of these guys checking in. Now if you saw the planes hit, you saw how much crap was scattered all over. So we find a passport, big deal. Occams razor, it was thrown clear and ONE was found. That is a lot simpler a solution then a massive conspiracy.

ockam's razor: If there is no forensic evidence to link debris back to a bomb, how can one positively identify the debris as belonging to terrorists? All the debris from the plane and from the tower would be EXACTLY the same, and nobody would be able to tell which passport came from bad guys and which one from a good guy. Remember, the last major terrorist incident in the US was carried out by white guys (Oklahoma city). The unabomber was a white guy. The guys at ruby ridge were white. There are plenty of white militants in this country who could have carried out the attack.

Maybe because they were looking for Arab’s since the last WTC bombing was done by Arabs and crazy white guys like to blow up government buildings. I tell you one thing, I’m a rescue worker and I see a passport with the name Mohammad Atta I’m going to make sure the FBI gets it in their hands ASAP.

Ockam's Razor: why the hell would a terrorist pack a bag and check it in for a suicide trip? Why would he put anything personal in the bag - a bag that's just going to be destroyed? The government would have us believe that these guys were highly trained professionals, so why would they fuck up like that?

You are a nutcase about to kill yourself and 3000 innocent people. You are really nervous and not even sure if you will get to meet those 70 virgins. You don’t want to look suspicious. You therefore check a bag like many passengers do to blend in. Hell that’s what I would do.

You can make up lots of hypotheticals to answer those, but there is a simpler answer: Somebody made up all the evidence and the guys blamed for the attack weren't the guys who did it. Also, remember that Bush never allowed the public to see the incontrovertible evidence that linked Al-quaeda to the attacks - and we've STILL not seen that evidence.

Simple answer: The shit linking the 19 hijackers to the attacks was made up.

OCCAM’S RAZOR
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

All of my explanations are single entities, or at most two. Passport thrown clear in crash, someone finds it. Terrorist wants to blend in, checks bag. Yours require a conspiracy to eclipse all conspiracies. It would take dozens of people on the ground, and I’d assume in the air (or were those remote control too?). It would require making sure the rescue workers didn’t see anything they shouldn’t. It would require the efforts of both the CIA and FBI to execute and cover it up. It is utterly batshit insane. That or just maybe I’m part of the conspiracy, but I deny I have ever been a high ranking member of the trilateral commission, nor have I been initiated into the illuminati in the last five years.

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally posted by balderdash111
On point 3: what charred engine? what eyewitnesses?

Alright, at the risk of feeding conspiracy theories, (they're fun, but...come on) I know a little about Flight 93.

I grew up less than 12 miles from the crash site. There were several eyewitnesses. Some say that they saw the USAF fighters...others did not. I personally know one of the witnesses(I went to high school with him), and while he didn't "see" the jets, there's no question in his mind, that he heard them. He is also very adament on the point that he heard two very seperate, and very distinct explosions.

I don't know about the charred engine, but one iregularity stands. The debris field was far to wide, at the point of "impact", and fanned out in a "V", suggesting that the plane exploded before it ever hit the ground. This meshes with my friends hearing two explosions.

And, with that, I will now remove my tin foil hat, as I don't hold to conspiracy theories. My opinion is that if the government took out Flight 93, they may have felt that the public would better be able to accept that the passengers overtook the terrorists, than knowing that the military took it out.

[MSD]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...estingday.html
(check link for links to citations and for the map)
When Did Bush First Learn of the Attacks?

Why does it matter when Bush left the resort and arrived at the school? Because this is the crucial time when Bush was first told, or should have been told, of the attacks. Official accounts, including the words of Bush himself, say Bush was first told of what was happening in New York City after he arrived at the school. [Telegraph, 12/16/01, CBS, 9/11/02] However, this statement does not stand up to scrutiny. There are at least four reports that Bush was told of the first crash before he arrived at the school.


In this map, the yellow star is roughly where Bush's motorcade is when Flight 11 crashes at 8:46, and the orange star is where he is when told about the crash a few minutes later. [Made with Yahoo Maps]

Two accounts explicitly state Bush was told while in the motorcade. "The President was on Highway 301, just north of Main Street ... [when] he received the news that a plane had crashed in New York City." [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] (See adjacent map for the location where he is told.) Another account states, "Bush was driving to the school in a motorcade when the phone rang. An airline accident appeared to have happened. He pressed on with his visit." [Observer, 9/16/01]

The first media reports of Flight 11's crash into the World Trade Center began around 8:48, two minutes after the crash happened. [New York Times, 9/15/01] CNN broke into its regular programming at that time [CNN, 9/11/01], though other networks, such as ABC, took a few more minutes to begin reporting. [ABC, 9/14/02] So within minutes, millions were aware of the story, yet Bush supposedly remained unaware for about another ten minutes.

Claims of Bush's ignorance become harder to believe when one learns that others in his motorcade were immediately told of the attack. For instance, Kia Baskerville, a CBS News producer traveling with Bush that morning, received a message about a plane crash "as the presidential motorcade headed to President Bush's first event." Baskerville said, "Fifteen minutes later I was standing in a second grade classroom [waiting for Bush's entrance]" - which means she got the news at about 8:47 - right as the story was first being reported. [CBS, 8/19/02] A news photographer in the motorcade overheard a radio transmission that Press Secretary Ari Fleischer would be needed on arrival at the school to discuss reports of some sort of crash. [Christian Science Monitor, 9/17/01] Another account notes Fleischer got the news that the crash had occurred "just minutes before," but notes that Bush was not in the same car as Fleischer. [CBS, 11/1/02] Senior presidential communications officer Thomas Herman said, "Just as we were arriving at the school, I received a notification from our operations center than [sic] an airliner had struck one of the towers...." [Marist College Magazine, Fall 2002]

Meanwhile, CIA Director George Tenet was told of the crash a few minutes after it happened. A messenger gave him the news as he was eating breakfast with former Senator David Boren in a Washington restaurant three blocks from the White House. Boren says Tenet was told that the World Trade Center had been attacked by an airplane: "I was struck by the fact that [the messenger] used the word attacked." An aide then handed a cell phone to Tenet, and Tenet made some calls, showing that at least some at the highest levels of the Bush administration were talking about an attack at this time. Tenet then said to Boren, "You know, this has bin Laden's fingerprints all over it." [ABC, 9/14/02]

Some people at the school also heard of the news before Bush arrived. Around 8:50, Tampa Bay's Channel 8 reporter Jackie Barron was on the phone with her mother, who mentioned the first news reports. At almost the same time, Brian Goff, a Fox reporter from Tampa, heard the same thing on his cell phone. [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] Associated Press reporter Sonia Ross was also told of the crash by phone from a colleague. [AP, 9/12/01 (D)] Florida Congressman Dan Miller, waiting in front of the school as part of the official greeting party, was told by an aide about the crash at 8:55, before Bush arrived. [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01]

Given all this, how could Bush have remained ignorant? Could he have been out of the loop because he was in a car? No. The previous night, Colony Resort manager Katie Klauber Moulon toured the presidential limousine and marveled "at all the phones and electronic equipment." [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] Karl Rove, Bush's "chief political strategist," who presumably was riding with Bush, used a wireless e-mail device on 9/11 as well. [Newsweek, 10/14/02] There seems to have been ample opportunity and the means to alert Bush.


White House Situation Room Director Deborah Loewer.

Another Warning

If Bush wasn't told while in his limousine, he certainly was told immediately after he got out of it. US Navy Captain Deborah Loewer, the director of the White House Situation Room, was traveling in the motorcade when she received a message from an assistant back in Washington about the first crash. Loewer said that as soon as the car arrived at Booker, she ran quickly over to Bush. "It's a very good thing the Secret Service knows who I am," Loewer later said. She told Bush that an aircraft had "impacted the World Trade Center. This is all we know." [Catholic Telegraph, 12/7/01, AP, 11/26/01]

The eyewitness reports:

Susan Mcelwain, 51, living just two miles from the crash site, says she saw a white plane directly overhead. "It came right over me, I reckon just 40 or 50 ft. above my mini-van. It was so low I ducked instinctively. It was traveling real fast, but hardly made any sound," she said. "Then it disappeared behind some trees. A few seconds later I heard this great explosion and saw this fireball rise up over the trees, so I figured the jet had crashed. The ground really shook. So I dialed 911 and told them what happened."

Mcelwain, who said that at the time she was unaware of the other three plane crashes, added, "It was only when I got home and saw the TV that I realized it wasn't the white jet, but Flight 93."

It was when she heard authorities deny the existence of the other plane that she became concerned, said Mcelwain, noting: "The plane I saw was heading right to the point where Flight 93 crashed and must have been there at the very moment it came down. There's no way I imagined this plane - it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look.

"It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side. I haven't found one like it on the Internet. It definitely wasn't one of those executive jets. The FBI came and talked to me and said there was no plane around.

"Then they changed their story and tried to say it was a plane taking pictures of the crash 3,000 ft. up.

"But I saw it and it was there before the crash and it was 40 ft. above my head. They did not want my story - nobody here did."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30682

The charred engine chunk and eyewitnesses.

I got the engine distance wrong. It was just over a mile away, I must have been remembering the initial report incorrectly.

The Witnesses.

At least six witnesses saw a small military type plane flying around shortly before UA93 crashed. The FBI denies its existance.

The Debris. The US Government insists the plane exploded on impact, yet a one-ton section of the engine was found 2000 yards, over a mile away and other light debris was found scattered over eight miles away. The FBI claim it bounced there from crashing to the ground.

The Mobile Call. The last 911 mobile phone call from Flight 93. Passenger Edward Felt made an emergancy call from the plane. He Spoke of an explosion and seeing some white smoke coming from the plane. The supervisor who took the call has been gagged by the FBI.

The F-16s UA93 was identified as a hijack at 9.16am. At 9.36am three F-16s were ordered to "protect the White House at all costs" when it turned towards the capital. At 10.06am it crashed at Shanksville, less then 10 minutes flying time from Washington.

The Black Box. Sources claim the last thing heard on the cockpit voice recorder is the sound of wind - suggesting the plane had been holed.

The Sonic Boom. The FBI insists there was no military plane in the area, but at 9.22am a sonic boom - caused by a supersonic jet - was picked up by an earthquake monitor in southern Pennsyvania, 60 Miles from away from Shanksville.

http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm358668.html

The mystery object:


Possible second and third UFO's (additional, not referred to in my original post)
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/WTC2.html
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Third.html

I'll find teh info on the stell melting point tomorrow, I can barely keep my eyes open now

[VitaminH]

I'm going to have to agree with Balderdash and Ustwo here, and after reviewing those sites refrenced above, I am seriously doubting the journalistic integrity of most of those sites. Especially anomalies-unlimited.com, and unsolvedmysteries.com...


As for Bush not reacting, think about it, you're about to speak to a group of schoolchildren, do you really want to be in a state of panic. He kept his composure because it was the right thing to do, and in a time where most people in the country are in a state of panic, it is a bad thing to see he who is supossed to be our leader in a similar state. Seeing Bush maintaining his composure is good for everyone who is now glued to their television sets.

[balderdash111]

I knew I would regret this....

Originally posted by iman
balderdash:

ockam's razor: If it takes over a year to remove debris from a site, what are the chances that the exact info you need will turn up two days into the search?

a) there's a big difference between removal and investigation. For one, when you are looking for documents, you can ignore the huge pieces of steel.

b) the 2 day figure is news to me. I had the impression that during the first 2 days they were more interested in putting out fires and looking for survivors, but that's beside the point....

c) I don't know when they found what, but I suspect it was not all turned up within a couple of days. They found one thing, then another. They probably still don't have all the info on everyone on that flight.

d) Finally, as noted before, a significant amount of airplane debris was thrown clear of the building in the initial impact, so it seems likely (esp since he was in the front of the plane) that some of the terrorist-pilot's info went clear as well.

Originally posted by iman
ockam's razor: If there is no forensic evidence to link debris back to a bomb, how can one positively identify the debris as belonging to terrorists? All the debris from the plane and from the tower would be EXACTLY the same, and nobody would be able to tell which passport came from bad guys and which one from a good guy. Remember, the last major terrorist incident in the US was carried out by white guys (Oklahoma city). The unabomber was a white guy. The guys at ruby ridge were white. There are plenty of white militants in this country who could have carried out the attack.

Um, yes. White people could have carried out the attack, but they didn't.

I imagine that when they started cross checking passenger lists against intelligence, they found some hits. Would it have been nice if they had been cross-checking when the tickets were purchased? Yes. But as it happens, the databases are not all linked, so the names weren't recognized.

How much debris was recognized as belonging to terrorists, anyway? We found identity documents, you say, and they're readily indentifiable (obviously). What else? We knew about box cutters from flight attendant reports. We had pictures of them in security checks. My point: I don't think it was the debris that linked the terrorists to the attack.

Originally posted by iman
Ockam's Razor: why the hell would a terrorist pack a bag and check it in for a suicide trip? Why would he put anything personal in the bag - a bag that's just going to be destroyed? The government would have us believe that these guys were highly trained professionals, so why would they fuck up like that?

SOmeone said this already, but getting on a flight with no bags looks really suspicious.

besides, maybe they figured the contents of the bags would be destroyed in the crash, so they could get rid of evidence that would have been useful in finding other cells?

Originally posted by iman
You can make up lots of hypotheticals to answer those, but there is a simpler answer: Somebody made up all the evidence and the guys blamed for the attack weren't the guys who did it. Also, remember that Bush never allowed the public to see the incontrovertible evidence that linked Al-quaeda to the attacks - and we've STILL not seen that evidence.

Simple answer: The shit linking the 19 hijackers to the attacks was made up.

This makes me laugh. I have a mental picture of some guy saying "Sure, you can come up with lots of " (makes air quotes) "answers and explanations but..." etc etc.

How do your arguments refute these explanations? And why do you think they lead to the inevitable conclusion that the whole thing was made up?


MrSelfDestruct:

Ok, your turn.

Bush knowing earlier than he says:

To repeat the question in the article you posted: why does it matter when Bush was told? Let's spin it the worst possible way for the administration:

Bush was told in the motorcade, or shortly after he got out, that a plane had hit the world trade center. He goes on with his scheduled event anyway.

And this leads you to think it was a government conspiracy how?

Here's my theory: Assuming this was true, the reports seem to suggest that Bush had incomplete information at first (only that there had been an air crash at the WTC - not that it was a commercial airliner - I think I remember someone in the administration saying they thought it was a little plane when they first heard about it - but have no data to back it up). He went on with his appearance anyway. Air crashes happen, and there's not much the President can do about it after the fact. And there was no indication at the time that this was a coordinated attack and that there was more to come.

But let's say it was worse: Let's say Bush was told an airliner had hit one of the WTC towers. Let's even suppose that he was told it was likely a tower would collapse. What does going on with the appearance prove? That he's unsympathetic? Maybe. That he wasn't as attentive to a continuing crisis as he should have been? Maybe. That he was involved? Not at all.

Eyewitness reports:

The sources don't seem particularly credible, and, frankly, I think a 51 year old woman seeing a plane over her head is a poor witness. There is no point of reference for judging scale, and I suspect that it went by so fast and so unexpectedly that her memory is not all that clear.

The engine:

The Unsolvedmysteries.com info, again, doesn't seem particularly credible. They seem to be pulling together every rumor they can find.

On the engine itself, I have no reason to doubt that a full-speed crash into the ground wouldn't send some debris flying a great distance.

*EDIT* (oops, hit "return" by mistake so it posted before I was done)

The UFO:

That little smudge could be one of about a million things. With all the cameras filming the tower, this should have appeared on dozens of recordings. Show me that on at least one other tape and we'll talk.



Final point: a conspiracy of this magnitude would require an ENORMOUS number of people. Pilots, FBI, FAA, DOD, etc. If it were true, you can be damn sure someone would have spilled the beans by now.

[iman]

I was wrong - there were at LEAST two passports found . Here are two reports one from Sep 12th and one from the 17th. Each lists a passport with a deifferent name, each recovered from the wreckage.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...AIN010912.html
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv...ion.terrorism/

Now, there may have been more passports found. I don't want to take the time to do an extensive search. So what are the chances of two passports being found intact, rescued from a flaming fireball that melted and destroyed ALL FOUR (!!!)black boxes that are designed to withstand the most extreme crashes?

How about this - the BBC reports that at least four of the hijackers identified by the US are, in fact alive and well and REALLY FUCKING PISSED OFF. Now, wouldn't you think that the american media would have jumped all over this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1559151.stm

Oh yeah - remember the stories about the hijackers being seen in a STRIP CLUB soon before the attacks? Why then hell would religious fanatics willing to die for their righteous cause fuck up in the eyes of Allah before blowing themselves up. Wouldn't Allah know? Where would their virgins go? Something doesn't make sense there.

Oh, remember all the reports about the 4,744 suspicious trades that happened on Wall Street right before the 11th? Remember all the talk about following the money back to the hijackers? There was unprecedented tradning of airline stocks before the 11th. That much we know. NOBODY has followed the money trail though - nobody has cancelled the transactions. Why? Somebody we like knew what was gong to happen and wanted to make some money off it, and now the US doesn't want to screw them or uncover their identity.

What about Bush's reluctance to have a 9/11 inquiry?

One last thing. If 9/11 was a conspiracy to get us into a middle east conflict, it would follow a pattern established all the way back to 1812. The Alamo, the Maine, Gulf of Tonkin, Lusitania: do those ring a bell? They were all staged/exaggerated to get us into war. Where was the press then? They didn't get it right. They went along to get along - and added fuel to the public sentiment for revenge. That's what sells papers. What happend when people CORRECTLY pointed out inconsistencies in the government/media's stories? The media called those people crackpots. Pearl Harbor? There are plenty of rumors about that one too. Our last war - Gulf war 1 - came down to an extremely close vote in the senate. What was the single thing that turned the tide in favor of war? Reports that the Iraqi army were pulling babies out of incubators in Kuwait and spearing them with bayonettes. Guess what? That was fabricated too. By whom? You guessed it - CIA. A former Kuwaiti official's daughter working for, and paid handsomely by, the CIA.

sorry for the typo's. I'm writing on a boroken keyboard. Damned CIA must have done it

[NoSoup]

Although I am generally not really into conspiracy theories, I figure I might as well throw this in the mix -

First of all, I firmly believe that flight 93 was shot down. Probably the best course of action, and I commend the government for making the passengers look like heros "by taking the plane down themselves."

My Reasoning behind this:

First of all, if yet another flight was hijacked, I would assume that most everyone would think that it would also be used as a missle to attack a target.

Secondly - I remember the very first reports, which included 2 interviews where eyewitnesses had seen fighters in the area.

Finally, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that points to the plane being shot down, such as the fighters in the area, length of time to reach the plance, time of the crash, and sonic boom.

On another interesting note, A few months ago I remember some architectual engineers dissecting the crash. They built model replicas of the towers and created nearly duplicate explosions within a very small error margin at the designated areas where the planes had hit. One tower did fall, the other stood. However, there was a HUGE time discrepency. According to their little experiment the tower that had fallen should have taken 3 more hours to collapse. The second tower, although damaged, was structurally intact and should not have collapsed at all, unless the first tower had made contact with it.

I do find it somewhat difficult to believe that although it takes months of calculations for demolishion companies to strategically plot out where to place explosives to cause the building to implode on itself, ramming to passenger jets nearly 40 stories apart had more or less the same effect. In my opinion, I imagine that there were explosives set to detonate, which probably saved many, many lives. Who put them there? No idea, it could have been either the government or terrorists, or of course they may have never been there at all. However, in the special that I had watched, after reviewing hundreds of different angles, many from home video cameras that were not taken from news segments, the engineers had decided that although the impact of the planes played a large role in the building collapsing, the buildings looked like they had a unidentified contribution to them collapsing, and they didn't feel comfortable speculating on what did cause it, although they said that placing charges would have a very similar effect.

Not sure how true any of the above is, but - like I said, figured I'd just bring it up

[passthru]

Unfortunately citing news reports doesn't mean something happened. It is true there are huge discrepencies, but unless there are several identical reports it is possible a mistake was made. Anybody have a link to a picture of when CNN reported the space shuttle columbia had reentered the atmostphere at 14 times the speed of light?

Things like the sonic boom being recorded 60 miles away are pretty credible though, since there would be a record of that from the machine that detected it.
There are a lot of strange things about the pentagon also. There are lots of pictures of it availble on US Government sites where a tree right next to the burned area of the pentagon is unburned or perhaps lightly singed. There was also the fact that for some reason the lawn was covered with gravel or sand (I don't remember which). I have no idea why you'd want to do that. Initially the official word was that there were no pictures or video of the plane hitting the pentagon, however I remember a report a few days after the 11th that somebody was arrested who was apparently insane. He was claiming that he had a home-recorded video of what happened to the pentagon. I saw this on TV and have no link to an article about it, could be untrue or poor reporting. Anyhow, eventually the Govt. said that a gas station across the street caught the crash on a security camera. I guess they didn't think to check there before(!?). The "video" was released and I saw reports on two sites about it, but it was only a 4-frame animation.. and none of the frames had a plane in it, just a large shadow. One of those two sites had a cropped version of it, the bottom was taken out. On the page that didn't have the cropped image, the date overlayed on the image was 9/12, though that could mean the gas station attendant was slacking
I think I have images of the pentagon as I was mentioning, and I know I have some HTML pages saved but I'm not sure that I saved the ones with the video. I'll check for those, but I have nowhere to host them.. don't really want to set up a free website account but we'll see if I have to