9/11
242, please share your expertise with us on this one.
Posted by Jay on February 28, 2007 02:06 PMOoh, ooh, Richard? What about the Mossad's complicity? And the calls to Jews that morning telling them not to go to work? And what was the involvement of the Council on Foreign Relations, Tri-Lateral Commission, and the Freemasons?
Come on, people. Is it too hard to admit that people from a non-Westernized and non-christian region could actually pull off something as huge as this? "Soft bigotry of low expectations" at play here, it seems. And under normal, controlled, and experimental conditions, the physical observations probably hold true; 9/11 was catastrophic, uncontrolled, and unprecedented, so the "normal" rules probably do not apply. I'm sorry, but this opinion most likely is "'conspiracy nut theory'".
And hey, I am not even close to a supporter of the W/Master Administration, and I can still accept the facts.
Posted by M 242 on February 28, 2007 02:10 PMWhy holding back, Jay? What are you afraid of? Certainly not little ol' me, right? Besides, this is right up your alley!
Posted by M 242 on February 28, 2007 02:12 PMWOW somebody really has way too much time on there hands. I don't like Bush or Cheney I think another four years with them this country would be overrun by another, oh wait I forgot Mexico did that. Or we would be in a civl war, but to say they brought it down with explosives is ridiculous.
Posted by SM on February 28, 2007 02:12 PM242, it was a professor of physics, if I remember correctly, that did a big research project on the 9/11 event about the WTC towers only. He was asked by some other group to check into it and give a scientific explanation. I read it. I watched the supporting videos too. He had no axe to grind. And though I'm no expert on that sort of thing, it appeared much more factual to me than the generally accepted explanation. If you do have an open mind, google it and check out the report. It will take a while to read, but I hadn't seen anything otherwise that came out to refute what he said. And I do not believe he was affiliated with any particular group, other than being employed at BYU. There are still hundreds of unanswered questions about that whole day that beg for honest answers. But, sadly, most in America will believe anything they see on the evening news. For instance, even with 276 eye-witnesses to the TWA800 downing stating they saw a missile come from the surface of the ocean and explode at the plane, the media, and the FEDS stated without question that it was a mechanical failure, even before much of the wreckage was recovered. So, 242, are you just a shill for the establishment, lurking to pounce on the folks whose opinions discredit the government line?
Posted by Jay on February 28, 2007 02:22 PMActually this writer is dead on. Additional reason not to believe the 19 terrorist lie:
1) WTC7 - the NIST was supposed to release a report about why this lightly damaged building was "pulled" that day in 2005...the report was never released.
2) No black boxes found in Manhatten but an undamaged passport from one of the "hijackers" flutters down undamaged.
3) Lack of plane wreckage in Pennsyvania and at the Pentagon.
4) The myth of flight 93. Cell phone calls were not possible from jets at speed and altitude in 2001. Let's roll never happened.
In fact it takes a tremendous leap of faith to actually believe the government myth. TRUTH OUT.
Posted by J on February 28, 2007 02:26 PMLook, I saw a documentary where one of the main features was the BYU professor you refer to, and he presented his findings. I did not doubt his sincerity, but I was not impressed. If you were, then fine. However, the position does not make sense. Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report? I took the time to, and I see no reason to doubt the findings. TWA800 was declared that because the first pieces of the wreckage found were from the site of the explosion. They did not have to find everything to determine what brought it down. Hundreds of unanswered questions? Well, yeah, they're there. The Commission acknowledged that. That does not point to the US as the perpetrators of 9/11. I am not a shill any more than you are rational (oh, dammit, that sarcasm thing again), wait, scratch that. I am not a shill. However, I am also not an anarchist either, right-wing or left-wing.
Posted by M 242 on February 28, 2007 02:33 PMYeah, throw the TRUTH OUT the window. Smart!
Posted by M 242 on February 28, 2007 02:38 PMAnother tin foil alert. level red!
Posted by Ann on February 28, 2007 02:39 PMRichard,
I can verify that I was not involved in the destruction of the twin towers and your entire post is a conspiracy nut theory. Love the most real scientists line...if one doesn't believe in your cock and bull they aren't real scientists. Ha ha ha
From my understanding, the professor at BYU was not even a structural engineer.......
I am still waiting on Ward Churchill to give his engineering expertise, before I make my mind up on the discussion
Posted by bwr on February 28, 2007 02:57 PMSo what did bring down WTC7 all you "rational" people? Fairy dust?
Posted by J on February 28, 2007 03:16 PMAnd what magic was in force that day and that day alone that allowed for cell phone connections from 30,000 feet and at 600MPH? Please, I am all ears.
Posted by J on February 28, 2007 03:18 PMSay what you want, but from the dozens of photos I saw, it was not a 757 that hit the pentagon. Make of it what you will.
Outta here for the day. Have a good one all.
J,
Ooh. One unanswered question, must mean the US has fooled us all!! Please, give me a break. Maybe its foundations were too damaged to hold it? Maybe another related reason? What, are you a structural engineer, do you have too much time on your hands, or do you believe everything that Mike Rosen and his ilk spew?
And the "magic" in play on the jet was that passengers were ignoring old FAA regulations that banned cell phone use in-flight. There was no technological barrier, only an easily ignored administrative rule. Not sexy enough for you? Too freaking bad, because the TRUTH is usually not very sexy at all. Oh well, you already threw your understanding of the TRUTH OUT the door, so I understand how this may be distressing for you.
Posted by M 242 on February 28, 2007 03:31 PMWrong and wrong. There is no structural or forensic explanation of why WTC7 collapsed and cell phone calls drop under 1% success rate at 8000 feet and 200MPH. Keep trying, there are many many more unexplainable things to be looked at under the "official" story.
Posted by J on February 28, 2007 03:38 PMWow, J, I guess you just can't be wrong!! I have no choice now but to join. Just please tell me, who is your hatter? That tin chapeau I must have!! And oh, yeah, when is the next meeting of the John Birch Society? I hope that I can hole up in my cave until the hat arrives, or I just might have my brain taken control of by the CIA, who will force me to hire illegal immigrants and spread crack cocaine to inner-city black youth. Your help has arrived none too soon!
Posted by on February 28, 2007 03:44 PMJust in case you didn't catch on, J, that 3:44 post was from me. Love ya! }; )
Posted by Misanthrope 242 on February 28, 2007 03:46 PMThe author is dead on- there are many questions about what happened on 9/11, and official explanations that are complete B.S. To state that anyone using their brain and questioning must be a "conspiracy nut" is complete idiocy. For example, having spent 10 years in the AF, part of which was flightline, the official explanation of the Langley scramble. The "OFFICIAL VERSION" states “After consulting with NEADS command, the crew commander issued an order at 0923: ‘Okay… scramble Langley. Head them towards the Washington area…’… That order was processed and transmitted to Langley Air Force Base at 0924. Radar data shows the Langley fighters airborne at 0930… The heading of the Langley fighters was adjusted to send them to the Baltimore area… At 0936…He [mission crew commander] then discovered, to his surprise, that the Langley fighters were not headed north toward the Baltimore area as instructed, but east over the ocean.
The Langley fighters were heading east, not north, for three reasons. First, unlike a normal scramble order, this order did not include a distance to the target or the target’s location. Second, a “generic” flight plan- prepared to get the aircraft airborne and out of local airspace quickly- incorrectly led the Langley fighters to believe they were ordered to fly due east (090) for 60 miles. Third, the lead pilot and local FAA controller incorrectly assumed the flight plan instruction to “090 for 60” superseded the original scramble order.” [9-11 Commission Report, pg 27]
Okay, here's the problem with the above-
ISSUE 1: Why does this page-long account contradict itself? The official version states that the order did not include the “target’s location”; however, it also states that in the generation of the original scramble order, the NEAD commander specifically directed pilots to head to the Baltimore area.
ISSUE 2: Why would pilots disobey a direct NEADS Commander order, not once, but TWICE? Who authorized this? Were the pilots interviewed, and what was their rationale? In this case, the scramble order included an initial order to head to the Washington D.C. area; since the pilots knew where to go before they even stepped in the plane, there was absolutely no reason to follow the generic flight plan. Even supposing they didn't receive the information on heading (extremely unlikely) and started to use the generic flight plan, they received in-flight instructions (which they would have been waiting for) to change their heading from Washington to Baltimore. Yet this second order was also ignored, and they continued to fly east over the ocean. (Thus why the NEADS Commander was so "surprised" [per the official report] when he went to change them back to Washington and discovered they were still heading out to sea.) The bottom line is that the pilots simply weren’t where they were ordered to go, and that as a result, they were just a little over a minute too late to intercept the crashed flight.
ISSUE 3: Why would the lead pilot and FAA controller believe that the generic flight plan overrode the original scramble order? Were these individuals interviewed, and what was their rationale? It simply doesn’t make sense. Speed is of the essence when scrambling. The whole focus is to get the pilots in the air as fast as possible; often they might not know what's going on or where they're supposed to go. Rather than having pilots flying around aimlessly while waiting for further directions, it is standard to create a generic flight plan to follow while waiting for further in-flight instructions. Believing a generic flight plan overrides the stated “real” destination is ridiculous, and continuing to do so after you have received further changes/instructions is unfathomable. At the very least, they should have asked for clarification, yet there is no record they did.
This is just ONE example of the crapola being foisted off on the public.
Posted by fiesty on February 28, 2007 03:47 PMWow. Why is it that rational fact based arguments get responded to with the ubiquitous "tin foil hat" response. Want more. Solid buildings, i.e. WTC1 and 2, cannot fall through their own undamanged floors at free fall speed. But that's right I forgot, it is easier to believe the laws of physics were suspended that day and that day only than to believe the neocons followed through on their promise in the PNAC report to bring about a "new Pearl Harbor".
Posted by J on February 28, 2007 03:52 PMHave any of you people actually read the 9/11 Comission Report? Or was it summarily dismissed because it was government-related? Guess what? I believe that (at worst) quasi-governmental panel of dedicated public officials, and that they had no plausible reason to skew any findings. I understand that extreme conservatives and liberals alike hate the government, but where is the evidence that there was any sort of a cover-up? Just because there are still unanswered questions about the events? If that is your logic, then you may be interested to know that I have a magic stone for sale that keeps tigers away . . .
Posted by M 242 on February 28, 2007 03:54 PMM 242- I HAVE a copy of the official report. Notice my previous posting which references the report.
Also interesting in regards to 9-11 is that the administration refuses to respond to the Family Steering Committee (FSC) who "is an independent, nonpartisan group of individuals who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. The FSC is not affiliated with any other group, nor does it receive financial or other support from any organization or individual." They have brought up VALID observations as well.
So, the families of lost ones don't deserve answers or closure? Are they all "conspiracy nuts" too?
M 242. In a debate it is customary to reply to the argument presented. You ask "where is the evidence". Ahhhh, the LAWS of PHYSICS. Free falling buildings, impossible cell phone calls, no plane wreckage at two crash sites (we've all seen video of plane crashes and they always leave lots of wreckage), the evidence being shipped away to foreign countries, bogus military excercises and flight plans, Cheney in his bunker allowing the so-called Pentagon strike (dead on the part under construction) and on and on and on. Just answer me this one quesion, oh wise one, what is your brilliant theory of why the NIST's promised report on the collapse of WTC due in 2005 was never delivered?
Posted by J on February 28, 2007 04:13 PMLets look at this discussion a bit differently since, I see no one defining of their expertise in engineering. Only Fiesty qualifies any expertise on the subject so far.
To qualify this theory (No it is not fact) how many individuals would have to be in on the theory? My non-expertise judgement would be "A hell of a lot of people"
Have any come out and squealed? If true, why not. Many experiments done on the # of people in on a "secret" the more the chances of exposure.
Are they being killed off? Are the threats of reprisal that high?
Dont see something this big being kept in the dark to the extent that is being posted.
bwr, very well said!!
Posted by M 242 on February 28, 2007 04:27 PMbwr- I believe that last post to be self-fulfilling logic. In other words, it couldn't be a secret because nobody could keep the secret.
Whether or not you agree with the objections raised, the following are facts:
1. NIST never did provide their final report.
2. No response to the Federal Steering Committee's concerns was received, despite the administration's promise to the families of the those lost.
3. The 9-11 Commission Report completely omits any explanation for the collapse of 7 WTC.
4. That former lead counsel for the House, David Schippers, says he’d taken to John Ashcroft’s office specific warnings he’d learned from FBI agents in New York of an impending attack – even naming the proposed dates, names of the hijackers and the targets, and the fact that the investigations had been stymied and the agents threatened. None of his warnings were acted upon. Post 9-11, when trying to find out why his intel wasn't acted upon, he was stone-walled by every agency he contacted.
5. The Official 9-11 Commission Report never explains the reasons or rationale why standard military protocols weren't followed (Langley scramble, Aircraft shoot orders, War game coordination, or why fighter jets from Andrews Air Force Base were 200 miles away, leaving the capital defenseless)
Once again, just a few items... And you don't think these merit investigation? I have the military AF background, was stationed on bases where the POTUS and VPOTUS visited frequently, so I am well aware of the safeguards in place. I don't think civilians realize the seriousness of the last few items- it is SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE for it to have occured that way.
Posted by fiesty on February 28, 2007 04:30 PMDid not disagree with you Fiesty....just stating fact that if there is a conspirocy that it is pretty damn good one because no one has spoken out. This seems odd
I am not refuting your points. I have no expertise there nor do I claim any in your area.
no, bwr, the rest of the post wasn't directed at you.
I was responding to the keeping it secret bit. I don't agree with that logic, especially when you figure that most people automatically do what we are seeing in this blog- assume that objectors to the official version of events "must" be conspiracy nuts, rather than examine and determine the validity of the arguments and evidence.
Posted by fiesty on February 28, 2007 04:48 PMFiesty I am going to disobey one of my own rules on here.......... So I apologize in advance :)
There are many people that disagree, dont believe in, refute, etc etc the Global warming discussion. Are they then considered Nuts or whackos or dittoheads....etc etc......??
There is evidence that points both ways on both of these discussions. I personally like to read, digest and then intelligently discuss. I have not found either to be completely defined as Fact in the scientific terminology.
bwr- exactly. It doesn't matter what the subject is. You should NEVER automatically dismiss an opposing viewpoint. Review their evidence WITH AN OPEN MIND, and if you disagree, do so in an adult manner. Unfortunately, you don't see that in the global warming, 9-11, or evolution blogs. Rather than address the subject and evidence, folks prefer to attack or ridicule the person who's opinion is different than theirs.
Posted by fiesty on February 28, 2007 05:13 PMNot this crap again!!! Save it for Oprah!!
Posted by on February 28, 2007 06:29 PMSee, the 629 pm post is a perfect example!
Posted by fiesty on February 28, 2007 07:26 PMThis is really confusing.
Just who exactly is it that you conspiracy advocates think was behind 9/11? And why exactly did they do it?
Posted by Jim J on February 28, 2007 08:11 PM9-11 was the work of terrorists, plain and simple. The Bush Administration has proven itself to be highly incompetent time and time again, they could not organize a trip to the grocery store. To say that the same administration that let New Orleans drown and Iraq decend into utter chaos, that let N. Korea develop a nuclear bomb, enabled Iran to become a beligerent threat to Isreal, etc. was able to organize the hijacking of four planes, the destruction of the WTC, and the damage of the Pentagon - all without any leaks or mistakes, is highly improbable. This administration is incompetent not evil, well Cheney is, but even he is not that evil.
Posted by Sean on March 1, 2007 12:52 AM9-11 was indeed the work of terrorists, but who are they? And who was behind them? There had to be a state actor involved. Who stood to gain? The Bush administration may not have actively planned it, but you have to wonder why the govt got rid of the physical evidence so quickly (that in itself is a crime), why it dragged its feet on setting up a commission, why it limited the scope of the commission's investigation. Its awfully spooky the way the administration was able to capitalize and use the attack to its advantage from the very first day. When a crime is exploited as thoroughly as 9/11 was, you have to ask questions, and that doesn't make you a conspiracy nut, just a person with a functioning brain.
Posted by on March 1, 2007 07:13 AMUnknown,
Yes, I see what you mean. Concealing evidence is what conspiracies are all about.
So, the absence of evidence of a conspiracy evidences a conspiracy.
However, the reasoning is a bit tautological for my liking.
Surely we can deduce our way through this without the benefit on much evidence? We do, as you point out, have functioning brains.
So what do you think is the greater scheme behind it all?
Posted by Jim J on March 1, 2007 09:36 AMit's has nothing to do with nebulous conspiracies with nefarious schemes by unknown characters. It has to do with the out and out LIES and omission given in the official report. Or can you explain the above?
Posted by fiesty on March 1, 2007 12:37 PMFiesty,
I prefer the scientific method in these cases. Instead of sifting through all the evidence with no defined purpose we first form an hypothesis to serve as a guide.
We next test the hypothesis against all available evidence. Based on that anyalysis we can determine whether the hypothesis is true or false.
So what I'm really asking for is the hypothesis.
Posted by Jim J on March 1, 2007 12:52 PMHypothesis: The alleged hijackers, who were poor pilots, could not have executed the jet maneuvers that occured on 9/11. Go Jim J, do some research, test away and report back.
J
I saw the second plane fly into the tower on live TV. One terrorist on each team had sufficient training to hijack an aircraft in mid-air and direct it into a building - not that tough.
But the real problem is that is a weak hypothesis. A good hypothesis leads to some important truth. All that hypothesis does, even if proved true, is nudge us further along in the conspiracy theory.
You're going to have to do better then that. E.g,
Hypothesis - President Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.
See what I mean?
One other thing - the burden of proof is on the one that argues for the conspiracy. So you must either prove or retract your theory. Assuming you actually believe it of course.
Posted by Jim J on March 1, 2007 02:36 PMExcellent job of research, now try again. The maneuvers of the jets prior to the moment of impact included extremely difficult maneuvers, some say beyond the capability of any human pilot flying those jets. Research is not, "I saw the second plane fly into the tower on live TV...not that tough" and that serves to neither advance nor detract form the non-conspiracy theory (i.e. that it was not a government conspiracy fulfilling the stated goal of the PNAC report to bring about a "new Pearl Harbor" to advance their imperial militarisic agenda). Then please take on WTC7 which collapsed although nearly undamaged, the physics argument of Professor Jones, the lack of plane wreckage at the Pentagon and Shanksville, the alleged cell phone calls that could not have been made from flight 93 at cruising speed and altitude. When you have knocked those ones down I have some more.
Posted by J on March 1, 2007 02:48 PMJ
I posted earlier that your hypothesis was weak which you don't seem to accept. I will be more blunt.
Your hypothesis is not a hypothesis at all. It is evidence that would be examined as part of the analysis of a hypothesis.
You can sift endlessly through all the evidence with claims and counter-claims but there is no pupose as you can plainly see from the string of previous posts.
What was wrong with my suggested hypothesis?
Posted by Jim J on March 1, 2007 03:48 PMSorry. Your hypothesis is fine. I was providing pieces that point to it. So here we go, hypotheis: the Bush administration either perpetrated or deliberately allowed 9/11. I have provided evidence that the official story cannot explain. Prove or disprove.
Posted by J on March 1, 2007 03:58 PMI'm pretty sure that most skyscrapers are designed with the express intent of standing tall even if a jetliner crashes into them at hundreds of miles per hour. Conspiracy proven. All I have read is circumstantial evidence which hardly proves a point. I hope one of you will enlighten the rest of us using physics in your argument(and I mean math, not words).
Posted by on March 1, 2007 04:57 PMJim J- your argument isn't valid. Stating that I need to form a hypothesis (only so it can be attacked) before requiring an answer to questions is completely idiotic.
The official 9-11 committee put out their version of f thevents; that doesn't absolve them of the responsibility of proving their assertations, or answering questions or challenges to what they state, especially when folks point out contradictions and fallacies in the report. If it's so easy to answer or explain, why not do so?
To use an analogy, it's like saying a teacher can provide a report card with grades, but if a student challenges a grade, that the teacher doesn't have to a) show any proof to substantiate the grade, or b) even respond to the challenge unless the student forms a hypothesis to explain why they think the teacher gave them the grade they did.
Posted by fiesty on March 1, 2007 07:16 PM"I have provided evidence that the official story cannot explain. Prove or disprove."
J- nobody will. I have posted ONE example of direct contradictions in the official report (with page numbers!), as well as how it violates military protocol. That's an official record, fact and not contestable. Yet no one has answered it or even acknowledged it as a valid concern.
But you know what? I suppose if a former lead counsel for the House can get stonewalled, so can we. I guess these other bloggers feel that it means nothing that his specific intelligence warnings were ignored, his FBI agents threatened, and the fact that he was stonewalled after 9-11 while trying to find out why his intel wasn't acted on.
Yup, all this must be the delusional ramblings of conspiracy nuts!
Posted by fiesty on March 1, 2007 07:23 PMNope, not conspiracy nuts, just nuts who think that you should be able build a case around circumstantial evidence that is only evidenced when placed in context. I'm glad that our courts don't use the type of logic used by J and fiesty, if they did we would probably have a second gunman sitting in jail right now based on the claims of a number of people that they heard a gunshot from the grassy knoll.
Posted by on March 2, 2007 08:50 AMTo use your legal metaphor, I never said it's enough to convict- but certainly enough to investigate. THAT'S the problem I have- refusal to even explain or address the inconsistencies.
Posted by fiesty on March 2, 2007 05:00 PM