Skip to content or view screen version

Hidden Article

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

The Looniest Of All 9-11 Conspiracy Theories

Gerard Holmgren | 05.12.2005 20:43

Please forward this to at least one media outlet.

The Looniest Of All 9-11 Conspiracy Theories

Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there will usually be at least one, often several wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it. 'The CIA killed Hendrix', 'The Pope had John Lennon murdered', 'Hitler was half Werewolf', 'Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone' etc, etc. The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it.
So its hardly surprising that the events of September 11th, 2001 have spawned their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales. And as always, there is - sadly - a small but gullible percentage of the population eager to lap up these tall tales, regardless of facts or rational analysis.

One of the wilder stories circulating about September 11th - and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs - is that it was carried out by nineteen fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they 'hate our freedoms.'

Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell.

Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories.

These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush([search]) regime was caught unawares by the attacks, had no hand in organising them, and actually would have stopped them if it had been able. Blindly ignoring the stand down of the US air-force, the insider trading on airline stocks - linked to the CIA - the complicit behavior of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about nineteen Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer four planes simultaneously and fly them around US airspace for nearly two hours, crashing them into important buildings, without the US intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.

The huge difficulties with such a stupid story force them to invent even more preposturous stories to distract from its core silliness, and thus the tale has escalated into a mythic fantasy of truly gargantuan proportions.

It's difficult to apply rational analysis to such unmitigated stupidity, but that is the task which I take on in this article. However, it should be noted that one of the curious characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that they effortlessly change their so called evidence in response to each aspect which is debunked. As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply invent another to replace it, and deny that the first ever existed. Eventually, when they have turned full circle through this endlessly changing fantasy fog, they then re-invent the original delusion and deny that you ever debunked it, thus beginning the circle once more. This technique is known as 'the fruit loop' and saves the conspiracy theorist from ever having to see any of their ideas through to their (il)ogical conclusions.

According to the practitioners of the fruit loop, nineteen Arabs took over four planes by subduing the passengers and crew through the use of guns, knives, box cutters and gas, and then used electronic guidance systems which they had smuggled on board to fly the planes to their targets.

The suspension of disbelief required for this outrageous concoction is only for the hard core conspiracy theorist. For a start, they conveniently skip over the awkward fact that there weren't any Arabs on the planes. If there were, one must speculate that they somehow got on board without being filmed by any of the security cameras and without being registered on the passenger lists. But the curly question of how they are supposed to have got on board is all too mundane for the exciting world of the conspiracy theorist. With vague mumblings that they must have been using false ID - but never specifying which IDs they are alleged to have used, or how these were traced to their real identities - they quickly bypass this problem, to relate exciting and sinister tales about how some of the fictitious fiends were actually searched before boarding because they looked suspicious. However, as inevitably happens with any web of lies, this simply paints them into an even more difficult corner. How are they supposed to have got on board with all that stuff if they were searched ? And if they used gas in a confined space, they would have been affected themselves unless they also had masks in their luggage.

"Excuse me sir, why do you have a boxcutter, a gun, a container of gas, a gas mask and an electronic guidance unit in your luggage?"

"A present for your grandmother? Very well sir, on you get."

"Very strange", thinks the security officer, "that's the fourth Arabic man without an Arabic name who just got on board with a knife, gun or boxcutter and gas mask...and why does that security camera keep flicking off every time one these characters shows up? Must be one of those days I guess..."

Asking any of these basic questions to a conspiracy theorist is likely to cause a sudden leap to the claim that we know that they were on board because they left a credit card trail for the tickets they had purchased and cars they had rented. So if they used credit cards that identified them, how does that reconcile with the claim that they used false IDs to get on to the plane? But by this time , the fruit loop is in full swing, as the conspiracy theorist tries to stay one jump ahead of this annoying and awkward rational analysis. They will allege that the hijackers' passports were found at the crash scenes. "So there!" they exalt triumphantly, their fanatical faces lighting up with that deranged look of one who has just a revelation of questionable sanity.

Hmm? So they got on board with false IDs but took their real passports with them? However, by this time the fruit loop has been completely circumnavigated,and the conspiracy theorist exclaims impatiently, "who said anything about false IDs? We know what seats they were sitting in! Their presence is well documented!" And so the whole loop starts again. "Well, why aren't they on the passenger lists?" "You numbskull! They assumed the identities of other passengers!" And so on...

Finally, out of sheer fascination with this circular method of creative delusion, the rational sceptic will allow them to get away with this loop, in order to move on to the next question, and see what further delights await us in the unraveling of this marvelously stupid story.

"Uh, how come their passports survived fiery crashes that completely incinerated the planes and all the passengers? "The answer of course is that its just one of those strange coincidences, those little quirks of fate that do happen from time to time. You know, like the same person winning the lottery four weeks in a row. The odds are astronomical, but these things do happen.

This is another favourite deductive method of the conspiracy theorist. The 'improbability drive', in which they decide upon a conclusion without any evidence whatsoever to support it, and then continually speculate a series of wildly improbable events and unbelievable co-incidences to support it, shrugging off the implausibility of each event with the vague assertion that sometimes the impossible happens - just about all the time in their world. There is a principle called 'Occam's razor' which suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct. Conspiracy theorists hate Occam's razor.

Having for the sake of amusement, allowed them to get away with with the silly story of the nineteen invisible Arabs, we move on to the question of how they are supposed to have taken over the planes.

Hijacking a plane is not an easy thing to do. Hijacking it without the pilot being able to alert ground control is near impossible. The pilot has only to punch in a four digit code to alert ground control to a hijacking. Unconcerned with the awkward question of plausibility, the conspiracy buffs maintain that on that September 11th, the invisible hijackers took over the plane by the rather crude method of threatening people with boxcutters and knives, and spraying gas - after they had attached their masks, obviously - but somehow took control of the plane without the crew first getting a chance to punch in the hijacking code. Not just on one plane, but on all four. At this point in the tale, the conspiracy theorist is again forced to call upon the services of the improbability drive.

So now that our incredibly lucky hijackers have taken control of the planes, all four pilots fly them with breath taking skill and certainty to their fiery end, all four pilots unflinching in their steely resolve for a swift meeting with Allah. Apart from their psychotic hatred of 'our freedoms', it was their fanatical devotion to Islam which enabled them to summon up the iron will to do this. Which is strange, because according to another piece of hearsay peddled by the conspiracy buffs, these guys actually went out drinking and womanizing the night before their great martyrdom, even leaving their Korans in the bar - really impeccable Islamic behavior - and then got up at 5 o'clock the next morning to pull off the greatest covert operation in history. This also requires us to believe that they were even clear headed enough to learn how to fly the huge planes by reading flight manuals in Arabic in the car on the way to the airport. We know this because they supposedly left the flight manuals there for us to find.

It gets better. Their practical training had allegedly been limited to Cessnas and flight simulators, but this was no barrier to the unflinching certainty with which they took over the planes and skillfully guided them to their doom. If they are supposed to have done their flight training with these tools, which would be available just about anywhere in the world, its not clear why they would have decided to risk blowing their cover to US intelligence services by doing the training in Florida, rather than somewhere in the Middle East, but such reasoning is foreign to the foggy world of the conspiracy theorist, too trapped in the constant rotation of the mental fruit loop to make their unsubstantiated fabrications seem even semi-believable.

Having triumphantly established a circular delusion in support of the mythical Arabs, the conspiracy theorist now confronts the difficult question of why there's nothing left of the planes. Anybody who has seen the endlessly replayed footage of the second plane going into the WTC will realize that the plane was packed with explosives. Planes do not and cannot blow up into nothing in that manner when they crash.

Did the mythical Arabs also haul a huge heap of explosives on board, and mange to deploy them in such a manner that they went off in the exact instant of the crash, completely vapourizing the plane? This is a little difficult even for the conspiracy theorist, who at this point decides that its easier to invent new laws of physics in order to keep the delusion rolling along.

There weren't any explosives. It wasn't an inside job. The plane blew up into nothing from its exploding fuel load! Remarkable, quite remarkable. Sluggishly combustible jet fuel which is basically Kerosene, and which burns at a maximum temperature of around 800 degrees Celcius has suddenly taken on the qualities of a ferociously explosive demolition agent, vapourising sixty-five tons of aircraft into a puff of smoke. Never mind that a plane of that size contains around fifteen tons of steel and titanium, of which even the melting points are about double that of the maximum combustion temperature of Kerosene - let alone the boiling point - which is what would be required to vapourise a plane. And then there's about fifty tons of aluminium to be accounted for. In excess of 15lbs of metal for each gallon of Kerosene.

For the conspiracy theorist, such inconvenient facts are vaguely dismissed as 'mumbo jumbo'. This convenient little phrase is their answer to just about anything factual or logical. Like a conjurer pulling a rabbit out of a hat, they suddenly become fanatically insistent about the devastating explosive qualities of Kerosene, something hitherto completely unknown to science, but just discovered by them, this very minute. Blissfully ignoring the fact that never before or since in aviation history has a plane vapourised into nothing from an exploding fuel load, the conspiracy theorist relies upon Hollywood images, where the effects are are always larger than life, and certainly larger than the intellects of these cretins.

"Its a well known fact that planes blow up into nothing on impact", they state with pompous certainty, "watch any Bruce Willis movie."

"Care to provide any documented examples? If it's a well known fact, then presumably this well known fact springs from some kind of documentation - other than Bruce Willis movies?"

At this point the mad but cunning eyes of the conspiracy theorist will narrow as they sense the corner that they have backed themselves into, and plan their escape by means of another stunning backflip.

"Ah, but planes have never crashed into buildings before, so there's no way of telling." they counter with a sly grin. Well, actually planes have crashed into buildings before and since, and not vapourised into nothing. "But not big planes, with that much fuel", they shriek in hysterical denial. Or that much metal to vapourise.

"Yes but not hijacked planes!" "Are you suggesting that whether the crash is deliberate or accidental affects the combustion qualities of the fuel?" "Now you're just being silly".

Although collisions with buildings are rare, planes frequently crash into mountains, streets, other aircraft, nosedive into the ground, or have bombs planted aboard them, and don't vapourise into nothing. What's so special about a tower that's mostly glass? But by now, the conspiracy theorist has once again sailed happily around the fruit loop. "It's a well documented fact that planes explode into nothing on impact."

Effortlessly weaving back and forth between the position that its a "well known fact" and that "its never happened before, so we have nothing to compare it to", the conspiracy theorist has now convinced themselves - if not too many other people - that the WTC plane was not loaded with explosives, and that the instant vapourisation of the plane in a massive fireball was the same as any other plane crash you might care to mention. Round and round the fruit loop.

But the hurdles which confront the conspiracy theorist are many, and they are now forced to implement even more creative uses for the newly discovered shockingly destructive qualities of Kerosene. They have to explain how the Arabs also engineered the elegant veritcal collapse of both the WTC towers, and for this awkward fact the easiest counter is to simply deny that it was a controlled demolition, and claim that the buildings collapsed from fire caused by the burning Kerosene.

For this, its necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose Kerosene which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy. You see, it not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball , vapourising a sixty-five ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000 degrees centigrade for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down the elevator shafts, starting fires all through the building. When I was at school there was a little thing called the entropy law which suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is readily observable in the real world, even for those who didn't make it to junior high school science. But this is no problem for the conspiracy theorist. Gleefully, they claim that a few thousand gallons of Kerosene is enough to:

- Completely vapourise a sixty-five ton aircraft

- Have enough left over to burn ferociously enough for over an hour at the impact point to melt steel - melting point about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel

- Still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all through the building

This Kerosene really is remarkable stuff! How chilling to realize that those Kerosene heaters we had in the house when I was a kid were deadly bombs, just waiting to go off. One false move and the entire street might have been vapourised. And never again will I take Kerosene lamps out camping. One moment you're there innocently holding the lamp - the next - kapow! Vapourised into nothing along with with the rest of the camp site, and still leaving enough of the deadly stuff to start a massive forest fire.

These whackos are actually claiming that the raging inferno allegedly created by the miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning Kerosene melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the black smoke coming from the WTC indicates an oxygen starved fire - therefore not particularly hot - they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000 degrees centigrade, without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics.

Not content with this ludicrous garbage, they then contend that as the steel frames softened, they came straight down instead of buckling and twisting and falling sideways.

Since they're already re-engineered the combustion qualities of jet fuel, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and redefined the structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in the way?

The tower fell in a time almost identical to that of a free falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that its physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors. But according to the conspiracy theorists, the laws of gravity were temporarily suspended on the morning of September 11th. It appears that the evil psychic power of those dreadful Arabs knew no bounds. Even after they were dead, they were able, by the power of their evil spirits, to force down the tower at a speed physically impossible under the laws of gravity, had it been meeting any resistance from fireproofed steel structures originally designed to resist many tons of hurricane force wind as well as the impact of a Boeing passenger jet straying off course.

Clearly, these conspiracy nuts never did their science homework at school, but did become extremely adept at inventing tall tales for why. "Muslim terrorists stole my notes,Sir." "No Miss, the Kerosene heater blew up and vapourised everything in the street, except for my passport." "You see Sir, the schoolbus was hijacked by Arabs who destroyed my homework because they hate our freedoms."

Or perhaps they misunderstood the term 'creative science' and mistakenly thought that coming up with such rubbish was in fact, their science homework.

The ferocious heat generated by this ghastly Kerosene was, according to the conspiracy theorists, the reason why so many of the WTC victims can't be identified. DNA is destroyed by heat - although 2000 degrees centigrade isn't really required, 100 degrees centigrade will generally do the job. This is quite remarkable, because according to the conspiracy theorist, the nature of DNA suddenly changes if you go to a different city.

That's right, if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in New York, your DNA will be destroyed by such temperatures. But if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in Washington, your DNA will be so robust that it can survive temperatures which completely vapourise a sixty-five ton aircraft.

You see, these loonies have somehow concocted the idea that the missile which hit the pentagon was not a missile at all, but one of the hijacked planes. And to prove this unlikely premise, they point to a propaganda statement from the Bush regime, which rather stupidly claims that all but one of the people aboard the plane were identified from the site by DNA testing, even though nothing remains of the plane. The plane was vapourised by the fuel tank explosion, maintain these space loonies, but the people inside it were all but one identified by DNA testing.

So there we have it. The qualities of DNA are different, depending upon which city you're in, or perhaps depending upon which fairy story you're trying to sell at any particular time.

This concoction about one of the hijacked planes hitting the Pentagon really is a howler. For those not familiar with the layout of the Pentagon, it consists of 5 rings of building, each with a space inbetween. Each ring of building is about 30-35 feet deep, with a similar amount of open space between it and the next ring. The object which penetrated the Pentagon went in at about a 45 degree angle, punching a neat circular hole of about a 12 foot diameter through three rings - six walls. A little later a section of wall about 65 foot wide collapsed in the outer ring. Since the plane which the conspiracy theorists claim to be responsible for the impact had a wing span of 125 feet and a length of 155 feet, and there was no wreckage of the plane, either inside or outside the building, and the lawns outside were still smooth and green enough to play golf on, this crazy delusion is clearly physically impossible.

But hey, we've already disregarded the combustion qualities of jet fuel, the normal properties of common building materials, the properties of DNA, the laws of gravity and the second law of thermodynamics, so what the hell - why not throw in a little spatial impossibility as well? I would have thought that the observation that a solid object cannot pass through another solid object without leaving a hole at least as big as itself is reasonably sound science. But to the conspiracy theorist, this is 'mumbo jumbo'. It conflicts with the delusion that they're hooked on, so it 'must be wrong' although trying to get them to explain exactly how it could be wrong is a futile endeavour.

Conspiracy theorists fly into a curious panic whenever the Pentagon missile is mentioned. They nervously maintain that the plane was vapourised by it's exploding fuel load, and point to the WTC crash as evidence of this behavior. That's a wonderful fruit loop. Like an insect which has just been sprayed, running back and forth in its last mad death throes, they first argue that the reason the hole is so small is that the plane never entered the wall, having blown up outside, and then suddenly backflip to explain the 250 foot deep missile hole by saying that the plane disappeared all the way into the building, and then blew up inside the building - even though the building shows no sign of such damage. As for what happened to the wings - here's where they get really creative. The wings snapped off and folded into the fuselage which then carried them into the building, which then closed up behind the plane like a piece of meat.

When it suits them, they'll also claim that the plane slid in on its belly - ignoring the undamaged lawn - while at the same time citing alleged witnesses to the plane diving steeply into the building from an 'irrecoverable angle.' How they reconcile these two scenarios as being compatible is truly a study in stupidity.

Once they get desperate enough, you can be sure that the UFO conspiracy stuff will make an appearance. The Arabs are in league with the Martians. Space aliens snatched the remains of the Pentagon plane and fixed most of the hole in the wall, just to confuse people. They gave the Arabs invisibility pills to help get them onto the planes. Little green men were seen talking to Bin Laden a few weeks prior to the attacks.

As America gears up to impeach the traitor Bush, and stop his perpetual oil war, it's not helpful to have these idiots distracting from the process by spreading silly conspiracy theories about mythical Arabs, stories which do nothing but play into the hands of the extremist Bush regime.

At a less serious time, we might tolerate such crackpots with amused detachment, but they need to understand that the treachery that was perpetrated on September 11th, and the subsequent war crimes committed in 'retaliation' are far too serious for us to allow such frivolous self indulgence to go unchallenged.

Those who are truly addicted to conspiracy delusions should find a more appropriate outlet for their paranoia.

Its time to stop loony conspiracy theories about September 11th.
See also:
 http://www.planetquo.com/Loony-9-11-Conspiracy-Theories

Gerard Holmgren

Comments

Hide 1 hidden comment or hide all comments

...

05.12.2005 22:02

Hmmm, so tell me, what happened to all the passengers, and what was all that business about them making cell-phone calls, stating that they were being hijacked by quote 'Iranian looking men'.

Were those calls just a load of actors? Or the Iranian looking guys a load of CIA agents? CIA suicide agents, wow, they must really have paid them a lot to convince them to die for George Bush. Maybe they were promised a paradise inhabited by 1000 virginal Ann Coulters.

Anyway, here is the 9-11 commission report, nicely fabricated by the CIA, Jews and Illuminati.

 http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/22jul20041130/www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf

Just to say, we have to fight George Bush's crazy 'War on Terror', and the neo-conservatives certainly manipulated the situation to try and impose their war-mongering agenda. But they are hardly evil geniuses, as the war in Iraq shows. The hijackers had every reason to want to commit 9-11 due to US policy in the middle-east, and I find your conspiracy theories ethno-centric ( only the intelligent but evil white people could perform such a deed ), racist ( because of course the Jews knew it was going to happen before everyone else ), illogical ( such a wide-ranging conspiracy, involving all the different governments, the airport staff, Al Qaeda, obviously a CIA invention....so many different people involved, and not a single leak, or person coming forth to reveal the conspiracy ) and disempowering ( the world conspiracy already controls everything...how can we fight back? ).

 http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/conspiracism.html

The US administration IS partly responsible for 9-11, through it's imperialist foreign policy. But the idea that a small group of white and jewish men plan everything of note that happens in the world is a complete simplification of complex power structures. It is a delusion partly created by the system we live in, which seems so complete and overwhelming, so powerful, with the spell it casts on all of us with the media, and the complete disassociation between us and nature ( how amazing that the food we buy in the supermarket appears magically as if from nowhere ). But try living in a third-world country for a bit, and you'll see the power of man is not all-conquering, and the seemingly perfect, glittery world that we live in is in reality full of holes, and built upon the exploitation of a majority of people living in poverty. There is a conspiracy, but it's one in which we all take part in, where the majority of people in the West engage in self-delusion in order to maintain their privelage. The name of the conspiracy is Capitalism. You don't need to look any further than that.

Hermes


But You Don't Know ...

05.12.2005 22:56

The claims made by the people who shouted "Iraq has WMD!!!", and then invaded the country in full violation of International Law, are also still in dispute. Four years after the fact. If they could support their case, they would have by now.

That Popular Mechanics article received so many refutations that the magazine's website was forced to remove its comments section. It's the same old stale rhetoric, which is simply designed to mask the key issue: The Bush/PNAC Regime's Conspiracy Theory regarding that horrific day remains unproven by key, compelling, and independently-verifiable evidence.

al Qaeda = CIA/Mossad


Repost - Rehash

05.12.2005 23:11

This is just a rehash, and a poor one at that, of a thread that crops up now and again. And I seem to remember the conspiracists disappearing like Scottish rugby victories when we took them to task last time.

Architect


At what time did anyone reading here ever

06.12.2005 00:04

make a telephone call on a cell phone from a passenger aircraft? Pre or post 11/9 was that?
The world is full of well meaning, gullible folks, who, by swallowing the hi-jacking tale, make life that little more difficult and sadder for the rest. Look at the videos of the demolition and you will see large girders flying 30 metres out from the buildings. It takes no intelligence, luckily, only eyesight. Go on.. have a look. And why was the remains of the steel(the evidence) shipped immediately out of the country. Alack, to figure that out does require a glimmer of intelligence, so don't exert yourselves there.

jimbo


Mainstream Media Hoax

06.12.2005 03:06

Play any DVD or video of the South Tower impact and when the alleged 767 comes into view hit the pause on your remote and then single step until the "plane" is completely absorbed - enfolded - into the tower. You will - or certainly should - be absolutely positive that the video is a fake. See the animated, cartoon 767 MELT - there is no other word for it - like a hot wire through butter into the building. You will see no vibration or crunching of the lightweight aluminum airframe as it slams into the exterior aluminum cladding, many windows, many concrete-and-high-grade-steel perimeter columns and many cross-trussed-steel-and-concrete floors; no crater-like indentation formed into the side of the tower; no breaking off or shearing of the wings or tail-fin; and hear very little sound on impact, etc...etc. And you will certainly NOT see any "confetti" cascading down. (This confetti nonsense comes from a fighter jet being slammed head-on into a rigid three-meter-thick block of solid concrete - not a 65 ton airliner slamming into a building with many windows and designed to "give" slightly in high winds). As for the "official" version - puhleeze, don´t make me laugh.

Or go visit  http://www.911hoax.com

Then, to see how the floors and exterior of the tower were constructed, go here:  http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2.htm .

If anyone still isn´t convinced of its fakery, then they are truly brain-dead.

No airliner hit the North Tower; no airliner hit the South Tower, no airliner hit the Pentagon. There were no airliners involved in the 9/11 hits. Try missiles. And a media (mostly TV and video) deception.

The three WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolitions: The Twin Towers EXPLODED; WTC7 IMPLODED. The Twin Towers were immensely strong and needed a very energetic agent - high explosives from near-top to bottom and in the basements near the bedrock - to bring them down. This has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt: see "Waking up from our Nightmare" by Don Paul and Jim Hoffman, as one proof among many.

Whatever happened to the passengers (did all of them actually exist?) and crews of the (alleged) pseudo-hijacked flights AA11 & 77 and UA93 & 175 - how, where, when (and IF) they were killed - is anybody´s guess

Watson Telly


Who Knows?

06.12.2005 06:06

Some have suggested that the passengers were loaded onto Flight 99, and then shot down over Pennsylvania. DNA testing would be interesting.

It's also interesting that the same Troll(s) always appear(s) whenever these issues are discussed.

However, I prefer to point to what we know; that the Conspiracy Theory upon which militant Fascism was once again unleashed on the world full-scale, has never been supported by compelling evidence, and the LIARS and War Criminals who want us to believe it, so that they can continue slaughtering innocent people, are certainly not above suspicion.

The Burden of Proof rests upon them ...

al Qaeda = CIA/Mossad


Last Time I was on a Plane

06.12.2005 07:52

'At what time did anyone reading here ever make a telephone call on a cell phone from a passenger aircraft?'

Last time I was on a plane there was a phone built into the handset that accompanies each passenger seat. These are not a particularly recent innovation One would also assume there would be no reason to install them at all if they never worked.

As for the alternative explanaions of 9/11 - there seems to be numerous versions, ranging from the alleged terrorists being set up, to radio controlled planes, to, as seen above, no planes at all! Would any of those proposing these theories care to indicate which of these even they find risable.

In addition, how come when one person, out of hundreds, mentions something about the metal edge of a bomb crater being bent upwards on one of the London trains - his account is cited numerous times as incontrovertable proof of a cover-up, yet when dozens of eye witness came forward after seeing a plane clearly hit the Pentagon, in addition to the hundreds of people on the ground who saw planes hit the twin towers, such accounts are summarily dismissed as nonsense or lies?

As for the popular mechanics article - it is commonly cited that this material was discredited, yet by whom, I would like to know. Who posted these numerous comments disagreeing with the panel of experts they had assembled? - were they also professionals within specific areas of expertise, or just people who would rather beleive their own version of events?

And why, for the simple fact that some people on this site have the temerity to disagree with some of the postings on this site, is that automatically also perceived as some sort of conspiracy involving the state? This knee jerk response of seeing government plots and conspiracies everywhere as soon as anyone says 'hang on a minute' tends to somewhat undermine any notion that you are seeking to uncover what happened in any rational/logical manner.

Sergio


"if anyone still isn´t convinced of its fakery, then they are truly brain-dead."

06.12.2005 13:32

"if anyone still isn´t convinced of its fakery, then they are truly brain-dead."

Guess that means I'm brain dead, then, but before I keel over, a question: how many times have you personnaly seen a medium-sized passenger jet crash into a skyscraper? I'm just interested as to your frame of reference, as you obviously know EXACTLY what happens under such circumstances.


"No airliner hit the North Tower; no airliner hit the South Tower, no airliner hit the Pentagon. There were no airliners involved in the 9/11 hits. Try missiles. And a media (mostly TV and video) deception."

I, along with about eight million other people, were in New York City on 11 September 2001. I heard the explosion as the first plane hit, and watched in horror as the second one roared overhead and ploughed into the other tower. There were hundreds of people standing around me who also saw it, and thousands, maybe millions more across Manhattan.

Now I know you'll just say "well, you're a liar", and maybe post a photo of a completely different tower block in Iran that has just been hit by a completely different plane and say "look, there's a slight difference in the pattern of damage caused," but anyone else who claims to have an open mind and yet still believes the waffle posted in this article is welcome to explain how what I saw with my own eyes that sunny morning four years ago.

FTB


oh fer-

06.12.2005 14:27

Jesus Christ 'Gerard Holmgren' is a fucking moron. Half of the city of New York PERSONALY WATCHED THE GODDAMN PLANES HIT. They all in the conspiracy?

See, this kind of stupidity is an inditement not of the lone nuts and ranters that post it, but of indymedia itself. Is this really what you had in mind when indymedia was formed? That it would devolve into such an infantile cesspit? 3000 people were murdered by islamist thugs on sep11, and THIS is the respect paid? A place where every idiot, shitzo, lunatic and fool can gather to piss on their graves?

Gerard, go fuck yourself in your stupid ass, you squirming maggot that eats off the dead.

Amos
mail e-mail: a@b.com


Never let evidence get in the way of a good conspiracy theory

06.12.2005 14:31

"a question: how many times have you personnaly seen a medium-sized passenger jet crash into a skyscraper? I'm just interested as to your frame of reference, as you obviously know EXACTLY what happens under such circumstances"

FTB is spot on the money here. The last time this thread came up, it was because the conspiracists suggested - hell, stated - that structural steel would not fail under fire conditions. This is patently absurd. I know - I design tall buildings for a living. The arguments were just rubbish, and the conspiracists couldn't produce compelling evidence.

So what are we back to now? No planes? Holograms? Majestic 12?

Architect


the usual questions?

06.12.2005 16:00

as per, the usual lines of enquirey are forgotten. regarding the pentagon and an earlier posters link to Popular Mechanics, ok the plane acted more like a 'liquid' and thus no wing/tail damage or relevent debris. So the plane went inside, but relevent pictures/statements dont really support this. Mr Ed Plaugher, Arlington County Fire Chief, didnt seem to be very enlightening on plane debris either.  http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t09122001_t0912asd.html
it also appears that various witnesses disagree about what hit the building. from a boeing, to a smaller plane to a missile. easy enough to clear up, release the security cctv from the petrol station, the hotel, and the other pentagon cameras (an i honestly supposed to believe that an attack on americas millitary heart is only covered by a 3fps? video camera where any true detail is obscured?). would like also to know why so many people reported explosions in the towers, and see a explanation of why squibbing( jetasions of smoke/ debris) is visable several floors below the point of colapse. or even why all the wreckage was never properly investigated from atomised materials to errent steels. I spose there could be a reasonable explanation for all of this, but it dosnt appear to be forthcomming. many questions so few satisfactory answers

yesneve


Ach, away

06.12.2005 19:04

"see a explanation of why squibbing( jetasions of smoke/ debris) etc etc"

Two things:

1. Pancaking of the floors - relatively small initial movement of the slab above as it fails produces quite a lot of airflow, windows blow out immediately below the area of collapse before said collapse is visible on the facade, end of story.

2. Provide me one credible structural engineer, architect, or other construction specialist who has ever come forward with an argument against the conventional account of the collapse? Come on, what happened - CIA pull the wool over hundreds of thousands of university-qualified professionals, eh? Without any dissent?

Architect


Quite Simple

06.12.2005 19:53

There were plenty of people - myself included - who refuted the PM magazine's Straw Men. So many people did this, in fact, that the magazine's website was forced to remove its comments section.

 http://www.google.ca/search?q=response+to+-+popular+mechanics+-+911&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

The fact remains that the Bush/PNAC Regime, the people who used their own Conspiracy Theory to launch a preconceived agenda of Fascism and Military Aggression upon the world, the War Criminals who LIED about Iraq's "WMD", have been unable to prove their theory with compelling evidence, in over four years.

Evidence that should exist if this Theory was true, simply does not, things like airport surveillance stills showing "ze terrorists" boarding the planes that morning.

Despite this fact, the compliant, tightly-controlled media repeats this unproven Conspiracy Theory as if it were fact, and the rest of the world is expected to temper their judgements about the unfolding Madness of these Criminal Extremists (www.newamericancentury.org), and excuse the indefensible, as if this was known fact.

That is a crime ...

Begs Investigation, To Say The Least


Yes, about the cell-phone calls

06.12.2005 20:38

I maybe should have mentioned that the calls from the 9/11 planes were alleged to have been made on conventional cell phones of the day. I spent some 22 years in the realm of radio communications, and have some understanding of the nature of the propogation systems deployed in civilian telecomms of a mobile nature. Firstly if you would be so kind as to mention the carrier with whom you flew and noticed the armrest telephones, I will certainly make enquiries. You also did not mention when was the last time you were in a plane, and that would be helpful too. Secondly, I can only recommend that you try a search via the net, or indeed a library to see if you can glean, for example, why mobile phones are commonly referred to as 'cell phones' The answer for this should be enough to explain why, in 2001, no cell phone calls were made from civilian aircraft via the cell technology used then.

Good luck


P.S. It no longer surprises me that thousands of citizens, irrespective of how they might be titled as professional this or erudite that, have failed to note the glaring discrepancies in a tale of fire that melts steel yet fails to char a passport which tumbled from one of the aircraft, given that millions of UK citizens remain quite convinced that the dreadful crime perpetrated on the underground in July was the work of the four young men in the 'frame', and all of it without a shred of evidence.

yours

Jimbo

jimbo


I'm not surprised ...

06.12.2005 21:05

the magazine closed their comments section if they were spammed by idiots like you.

sceptic


Jimbo: Full of It or What?

06.12.2005 21:37

Okay Jimbo, so 2001 mobile phone technology doesn't work on aeroplanes, eh? Refute these, mate:

 http://www.mobile-review.com/articles/2002/plane-en.shtml

A 2002 magazine article discussing the case that mobile phones on aircraft are probably safe, but referencing their use as far back as 1996.

Jings, look, another one, this time from 2000:

 http://www.wave-guide.org/archives/emf-l/Aug2000/Cell-phones-to-be-banned-on-commercial-aircraft-(Lundquist)-.html

Now just a minute, here's one on much the same topic from 1999 - but look, it also talks about in-flight 'phones!

 http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,2074198,00.htm

There are loads like this. In fact the only ones which are easily found taking a contrary view are on the various 911/truth type sites. They claim the phones don't work above a few thousand feet (the figures vary).

But get this. I've stood on a 4,000 ft mountain top with the nearest transmitter a good 4 or 5 miles away and still got a signal! Not a great signal, but an acceptable and audible one nonetheless. On a bog standard Siemens.

So Jimbo, why should I believe you?

Amused


Devil's Advocate

06.12.2005 21:43

Holmgren's article has been kicking around the internet for some time now, and it usually generates a lot of controversy. There's a good reason for that. Why should the U.S. government's official version be believed? let's not forget that this is the same government that lied itself into the war in Iraq. With a proven track record for deception, why is outside the realm of possibility that it also lied itself into the invasion of Afghanistan?

Not that it counts for anything substantive, since I was in an office in the World Financial Center and merely felt the impacts of the two jets, but, having been there, I have a vested interest in knowing exactly what did happen on September 11, 2001.

Many things bother me about the official version, but I will raise just one of them here. The security tapes from the Pentagon, the Sheraton Hotel and the Citgo Station should clearly show what hit the Pentagon. But, all we have gotten are five ambiguous frames from the Pentagon camera and nothing from the Sheraton and Citgo cameras. Why can't the public see what is on those tapes? If it was American Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, and if the impact was captured on tape, what reason could there be for withholding these tapes from the public?

Is the government merely being provocative for its own sake? Or, do those tapes reveal something that would challenge the official story? I'm open to any reasonable suggestions that would explain the withholding of these tapes.

Roland


Even more amusing

06.12.2005 22:09

Even better....here's a 911 conspiracist web-site which rubbishes the "mobile phones don't work on planes" theory! Love what it says about nutcase(or possibly psyops) 911 sites too....

 http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

Jimbo


Iranians build better !

06.12.2005 22:29

Today an american built aircraft crashed into a block of flats (shall we say) the jet wasn't so big and compared to the WTC twin towers, neither was the building. The building was shown on the BBC and looked to be smouldering a but not looking likely to neatly collapse into a pile of molten metal as did the twin towers and WTC7 in sympathy with the other two. I wonder if this is because Iranian Architects do it better.
Not that i am a great fan of architects or for that matter the rest of the proffessional classes, lawyers and other similare types of parasites.Anyone that believes that 9.11 was carried out by the mythical Al Quada and set up by Bin and his gang from the bat cave needs to get real. septic and architect and a whole load of half baked sweaty socks are flailing in with their cute one liners from the depths of ~Emmerdale farm, europe is being taken over by various forms of organized crime Russian mafia's an the like, not the smiling goon that has taken over at chelsea. The proceeds from trading in people, human organs, drugs, arms and toxic waste are neatly channeled back into the corporate system, exactly who bin and the boys are working for is besides the point all that matters is the cash flow. Spectacular demolition jobs don't come cheap you know gromit !!

Conspiracy Charlie


The Pod People

07.12.2005 05:30

The fact that the media still refers to the Bush/PNAC Regime's Conspiracy Theory as fact just shows why they can no longer be taken seriously.

The "Pod People" And The Plane That Crashed Into the Pentagon
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html

Propagandists call it "poisoning the well", the tactic of destroying the truth by mixing in an easily exposed lie. Ever since citizens started to doubt the official story on 9-11, government operatives have tried to foist off the idea that something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon, and that the real Flight 77 was somehow spirited off to a mysterious unknown destination. More recently, this nonsense has been embellished with claims that there were "pods" on the outside of the 757s or even that there were nothing but holograms hitting the buildings.

The methodology of this "poisoning the well" strategy is to wait to reveal the planted false information until the moment when the revelation will cause the maximum amount of damage.

That moment may well be next week, in the 9-11 event scheduled to take place in Florida. They are getting a lot of press, and even FOX news ran a story today about a student film that dares challenge the official story of 9-11, but alas has included a self-destruct mechanism of the "no plane at the Pentagon" hoax.

The FOX coverage, together with the flood of "no plane" emails from the pod people suggests that something is up.

I would not be surprised to see the Florida conference given a huge amount of media attention, focusing on the "no plane" nonsense, ending with ABCNNBBCBS broadcasting a "recently discovered" videotape of the crash of Flight 77 into the Pentagon that shows the actual aircraft quite clearly, then to be followed by howls of feigned outrage by the network news at those #$^# blogs daring to question the accuracy and integrity of the "professional" news departments in the corporate mainstream media.

al Qaeda = CIA/Mossad


Aw, bless...

07.12.2005 08:04

"Not that i am a great fan of architects or for that matter the rest of the proffessional classes, lawyers and other similare types of parasites"

So I assume you're also against buildings? You know, like the one you're sat in right now?

FTB


Jimbo...my point was

07.12.2005 08:46

...people have got hung up on this notion that because someone mentioned 'cell-phones', the conspiracist rebuttal has usually been 'ah, but they do not work at such an altitude'. Firstly, there is some evidence that cell-phones can work at such altitudes (if they pressed re-dial endlessly on their last flight, can you guarantee that these poor unfortunates never got through to their loved ones?). Secondly, if they did not get through, isn't it entirely possible that they would have used the on-board phones that are included in the handsets attached to each passenger seat. I have flown on Virgin, British Airways, Singapore Airlines, Japanese Airlines and Quantas and, as far as I recall, they all had on-board phones installed. The last time I flew was 2004.

The fact is, these phone calls exist, hundreds of phone calls were made to families from people who I believe died on those doomed flights. None of these people making the calls mentioned the fact they had been kidnapped by the CIA/Mossad or that they were not on planes at all, strangely they mentioned something about terrorists hijacking planes. For people to dismiss this very real, existing evidence on the basis 'ah you said cellphone and they do not work at such altitudes - so therefore the whole story must be faked' seems to me to be patently absurd.

Sergio


Re: On-board Phones

07.12.2005 11:27

American Airlines talks about them here:

 http://www.aa.com/content/travelInformation/duringFlight/onboardTechnology.jhtml?anchorEvent=false

Also note the following quote on the Arab Emirates site

 http://www.airlinequality.com/Product/EK-Product-new.htm

'One feature remains unchanged: every passenger in any seat on board can phone anyone anywhere in the world for just US $5 a minute, using an individual handset controller to access the lowest-cost and most widely-used inflight phone system in the skies'.

In case, I did not make it clear, this technology was certainly available on Virgin planes when I flew to Australia in 2000 and has been included in every flight I have made since.

Sergio


Eco hut

07.12.2005 11:51

"Not that i am a great fan of architects or for that matter the rest of the proffessional classes, lawyers and other similare types of parasites"

So I assume you're also against buildings? You know, like the one you're sat in right now?

yes I am against buildings, no the one I am sat in now was built by a bunch of farmers and the basement which was under ground was once inhabited in by the Estruscans, the walls of the house are 4 foot thick and contain earth rocks bricks, you name it...
I am also involved with permaculture, projects with no leccie gas or other coorporate attachments and hope very soon to move into a wood/ forest and cut myself off from everything including the internet.
Just to make it clear how much I despise the prof classes I think Pol Pot woould have worked wonders with them... geddit

pol potty


alas

07.12.2005 13:11

strange init, bogged down in the usual stupid assumtion. evidently we have no proof to argue that holograms/pods really existed, nor does a fruitless argument about cell phones get us anywhere. did a plane hit the pentagon? myself im really not sure, from what the photos/witness/strange investigations come up with it doesnt look good. i dont know if theres enough evidence to swing this to discussion either way, what might help is a pooling of all photos/statements/witnesses and try and draw a logical conclusion on it. dont know only a suggestion. but even from what i can see the investigation for the twin towers was seriously flawed. the 9/11 commision only had a very limited brief (largely to confirm the governments story and to exclude anything that dosnt fit). many witnesses were excluded, apparent harrasment from various government agencies has also been reported. certainly what i would like to see is a proper analysis of all the hypotheticals, what caused the chains/series of explosions that many reported, what about the cnn/msbn (cant remember which:) report that new york city police found suspicious packages, or the fact that the crime scene was butchered (largely steels, black boxes and vaporised materials). would also love to know who had the downbets going that day (inside trading was almost certain in this) but sadly/conviently that knowlege is forbidden in the public realm (as far as i know). What i believe is needed is a serious set of questions to try and get to the bottom of the glaring inconsistancies/errors that occured on that day.
all in all there could be reasonable explainations for all of this, but when we have two wars against different countries, when the justifications for these have been partly/wholely fabricated, (was bin lad ever in afganistan? did saddam have those wmd?). i myself would like to see a proper explaination for the original catalysing event (anyone actually read project for the new american century? scarey stuff). the facts are that the heads of the bush admin have dark histories/ideologies and can we trust them to tell us the truth? if they can lie about saddam and murder 10,000 - 150,000 in iraq only, would it be that inconcievable that they could invent 9/11 for there own ends? 3000 dead americans could potentially be a small price to pay for what these people believe to be in there countries interests....

yesneve


Oh dear!

07.12.2005 16:06

"yes I am against buildings, no the one I am sat in now was built by a bunch of farmers"

Right. Okay. But it's still a building mate. How about hospitals? Against them too? Schools? Daycare centres? Reckon a bunch of farmers are going to construct a vernacular vaccine lab, do you?

Get a grip. What you mean is that you're interested in eco buildings, most of which are designed by...wait for it.....architects.

Architect


The Point

07.12.2005 17:39

The fact remains that the Bush/PNAC Regime, the people who used their own Conspiracy Theory to launch a preconceived agenda of Fascism and Military Aggression upon the world, the War Criminals who LIED about Iraq's "WMD", have been unable to prove their theory with compelling evidence, in over four years.

Evidence that should exist if this Theory was true, simply does not, things like airport surveillance stills showing "ze terrorists" boarding the planes that morning.

Despite this fact, the compliant, tightly-controlled media repeats this unproven Conspiracy Theory as if it were fact, and the rest of the world is expected to temper their judgements about the unfolding Madness of these Criminal Extremists (www.newamericancentury.org), and excuse the indefensible, as if this was known fact.

That is a crime ...

Begs Serious Investigation


FTB, focus on this. Too late. You missed it, mate

07.12.2005 23:20

No airliner hit the North Tower; no airliner hit the South Tower, no airliner hit the Pentagon. There were no airliners involved in the 9/11 hits. Try missiles. And a media (mostly TV and video) deception.

This is indeed Occam's Razor at its sharpest. No longer do we need the infamous stand-down, FAA incompetence, NORAD complicity (except in the coverup) and incomprehensible flight-paths - although we still need the war-games for maximum confusion and for the pseudo-hijackings. Thus is a massive amount of deadwood and personnel eliminated from the caper. In fact, the no-planes explanation is the ONLY rational, completely logical explanation there is; all the other theories have way too many potential pitfalls (eg. remote control) and way too many people to have successfully kept a lid on it.

THE "LIVE" SOUTH TOWER HIT:

Consider the LIVE footage where we see the SAME CNN (or CBS) feed - on ALL channels (don't forget these Zionist Bozos have already got together on "how to cover the next terrorist attack", and no doubt did so before 9/11). All we see for about TWO seconds is a silhouette - with no depth perception and reflected light, whatsoever - resembling an aircraft, travelling from west to east into the blazing sun, before it conveniently disappears behind the North Tower. The entire South Tower IS NOT SEEN. (This live feed could easily have been delayed for x seconds before transmission - enough time for the techno-spooks to insert the artifact/animation, when they knew the rough location of the fireball. The artifact can, of course, be inserted in real time, anyway). This is BY FAR the VERY BEST angle - side on to the artifact at optimum distance and a totally hidden South Tower - to deceive us. (And all set up in a choatic New York in less than 17 minutes! Miracles will never cease). But it comes at a price: the artifact in later doctored VIDEO transmissions has to execute a near-impossible (some pilots say impossible) banking maneuver for such a giant airliner, so that the angles, the artifact's "flight path", the explosion and the damage to the building, correlate. After this "live" footage, OBVIOUSLY, ALL SUBSEQUENT TRANSMISSIONS ARE FROM VIDEO, some from different angles, which were, and are, continually being refined with each transmission (eg. the widening of the artifact's arc of approach and angle of attack from 2-3 o'clock to 1-2 o'clock as viewed from the north). All this can easily be done. When was a different "angle of attack" televised after that brief "live" hit? Not for many hours later. MINUTES are enough to accomplish the doctoring of all videos, from all angles.

All the "amateur" (my ass) videos have been thoroughly - and brilliantly - debunked by many specialists.

As for the "WTC impact footage from WNYW" proclaimed by some, boy-o-boy, that sure is a Boeing 767 now ain't it? Well, robertsyourmothersbrother! Nosireebob.That could quite easily be a cruise missile or a flying turd just about to hit the device that consists of a series of vanes radiating from a hub rotated on its axle by a motor. Scores of technicians needed to pull off the caper? Bullshit. Just one outside broadcast van and crew will do.


EYEWITNESSES/PHOTOGRAPHERS/TOURISTS/INDEPENDENT TV STATIONS, etc:

Assuming they didn't know from which direction the hit was coming, they had only SEVENTEEN MINUTES MAXIMUM to set up their gear in a chaotic NYC; and why would they be focusing on the SOUTH SIDE of the SOUTH Tower? All the action was on the NORTH side of the NORTH Tower. 450mph = 220 meters per second, so they would have had very little time - SECONDS - to see, never mind locate and focus on, the missile from ANY southerly vantage point. What a miraculous CNN video that was! And good 'eavens Evan's! Et les "Naudet Freres"! C'est Impossible! You won the lottery thrice-over there, boyos. QUICK, TAKE A CAMERA SHOT OF THAT MISSILE, FTB! TOO LATE. YOU MISSED IT, MATE.

As any psychologist will tell you, eyewitness testimony must always be taken with a dollop of salt, especially when - in shock and well after the event they are recalling - the meme of planes-planes-planes has been thoroughly implanted. And where were the 200+ Israeli spooks and FEMA that morning? I would bet my bottom dollar they were playing their roles as false-eyewitnesses (and fake-evidence planters) at the WTC - just like the ubiquitous, impossibly-located "Naudet brothers" - and at the Pentagon. Assume the missile (or no missile at all, just explosives in the building itself) comes in from the south. Most people are looking, if they are looking at all, directly at the gaping hole and smoke on the NORTH side of the North Tower. So, like us watching the live transmission, they cannot possibly see it. Witnesses at ground level have hardly any chance of seeing it, even from the south, east, or west, what with all the obscured views and so little time; and they have no sound - certainly not the deafening roar a giant airliner, 250 meters away, flying at 450+ mph, would make in the thick air of Manhattan - to aid their senses. This is a near-silent, very fast moving air-to-surface (White jet, anyone?) or surface-to-surface missile (Woolworth Building anyone?) we're talking about.

So FTB, where exactly were you located on the morning of 9/11?

Watson Telly


Right then

08.12.2005 00:45

Several million people in New York. Quite a few eyewitnesses then. But they were all fooled! All deceived! All taken in! Not like you. Cos you know the TRUTH, don't you? No fooling you! Whay a clever chappie you must be.

sceptic


Here ya go, Septic. Just for you.

08.12.2005 03:32

Many eyewitnesses reported seeing anything but a commercial airliner:

 http://www.orbwar.com/woolworth/

That's the trouble with wannabee smart-arses like you Septic - you don't look before you leap.

Tee Vee Lies


911 is relatively unimportant

08.12.2005 03:54

Yeah, TV lies, the Twin Towers are in fact still standing but nobody haas bothered to look except for me...

I hope you lot are aware that a lot of these websites are obvious LaRouchist cult fronts. Certainly oilempire.us is. Designed to distract the peace movement from protesting war at times of war. The world didn't change on 911. More Americans were killed In New Orleans but I don't see a Bush led war on climate change.

Danny


Missile!

08.12.2005 10:40

Have you even started to think of the size of missile that would be needed? Let's take an Exocet. It made a lot less mess of HMS Sheffield than whatever hit the WTC. It's nearly 6 metres long. And no one noticed this thing being hauled up a skyscraper? Plus its associated launcher, which would be considerably bigger. Aha. Perhaps Lord Voldemort Apparated it up there!

sceptic


No Planes?

08.12.2005 12:50

I posted a response to the lenghty 'no planes post' but it does not seem to have appeared. Suffice to say, this allegedly incisive use of Occams Razor actually generates more questions that it supposedly answers and is fairly well rebutted here:

 http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html

I thought the point of Occams Razor was to find the simplest explanation for all the known variables, not to find the simplest explanation by ignoring most of the variables and adding numerous unsubstantiated assumptions of your own.

Sergio


Conspiracy Theories

08.12.2005 17:16

I remember the former head of PR at the LSE once gazing out a window as the subject of a conspiracy theory arose, before quitely saying "I'd be more inclined to believe conspiracy theories if it weren't for the fact the governments have proven themselves wholly incapable of organising anything else properly".

And that's the point here, isn't it. The missles, or the explosives, or whatever theories are all predicated upon the US government (or parts thereof) orchestrating a grand consipiricy which would involve hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Yet we are meant to believe that they have pulled this off in almost complete secrecy.

Failure of steel due to fire? Doesn't happen? Oh the architects and engineers are in on it.

Missile instead of plane? Holograms! False witness statements!

Pentagon? Ignore that big bit of engine in the photos - it must have been planted!

And so on. Ad infinitum. Yet what we don't see is compelling, relevant expert input.

Architect


Ah but there is where you err mr artyfartytech

08.12.2005 20:25


Of coming from a bourgeois world where left and right actually have a meaning and "one" is led to
believe that things are as they are supposed to be and governments rule the world .. well sorry to upset
your cosy little T set or perhaps it should be T square as in Masonic INNIT .
Goverments don't rule shit and the world is run by hard noised criminals so while yer man from the LSE
is gazing out of his window onto the streets of London complete with gutter snipes, urchins and other forms of street life better that you remember your priviliged back ground and that todays left wing government made up of greens and various other new labour scum don't represent the people in such, cos it depends on which people your talking about like but not the ones that don't have a pot to piss in type people ...
So when you look at where all the loot from arms and drugs and toxic waste goes then you knows as much as I do. Then you look at the corp scum that produce vaccines and you ask in who's interest is it to have outbreaks of highly contagious deseases same goes for the makers of WMD and just the ordinary type of wipe 'em out weapons who'se interest is in war. The makers of security systems that need terrorist attacks and so it goes on. The Club of Rome wot said that the birth rate was too high and the death rate needed to be shall we say improved .. yep we need architects would you be related to the architect of the universe or just some lonely pratt who needs twatting in the head ?? I think we should be told ..

himself indeed


I commanded U.S. Airforce to standdown - USAma bin Boogeyman

08.12.2005 21:32

Animation showing military precision of flightpaths - War game directed by Cheney:

 http://www.team8plus.org/news.php?item.32

9/11 Israeli agents:

 http://www.rense.com/general67/pull.htm

WTC:

 http://www.911hoax.com/gWitnesses2.asp?intPage=80&PageNum=80

Pentagon:

 http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77.html

Commercial Pilot & Aeronautical Engineer Explains Why Official 9/11 Story About Pentagon Is Bogus:

 http://www.rense.com/general69/bogus.htm

Still believe the official fairy-tale?:

 http://www.911proof.com/

Psy-Ops R Us


Oh dearrie me

08.12.2005 21:49

Aye mate, dinnae bother asnwering the points I made....go for insults instead. That'll do your cause no end of good.

Architect


Fairy tales

08.12.2005 22:40

ah, rense! what an authorative site. I love its keen insight into the world today. I mean with articles like 'Jewish Dominance in the Porn Industry', it hits the nail right in the head, doesn't it? Oh, by the way, I'm surprised that no one has yet suggested the WTC was demolished by an Israeli mininuke. Or perhaps I've just missed that one.

sceptic


Septic Tanks

08.12.2005 23:18

Haven't you heard of a helicopter? You brain-dead fucktard.

Presstitute


Israelis were up to their necks in 9/11

09.12.2005 00:33

 http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j030802.html

"ah, rense! what an authorative site. I love its keen insight into the world today. I mean with articles like 'Jewish Dominance in the Porn Industry', it hits the nail right in the head, doesn't it?"

Jeez. Is that the way you Khazars circumcise these days? I feel sorry for you. No wonder you're all fucked up. In most porn there is a prevalence of circumcised dicks, so the vicar tells me. What do you do with the foreskins? Don't tell me - you pile 'em up to a height of 5'6" and call the prick Sceptic. Mind you, with a nail in the head, it would be more like septic.

Long Dong Silverstein


oh yeah

09.12.2005 01:09

well, now, my megabrained friend - have you looked at the pictures of the top of the Woolworth building?

Fucktards can post links, so here goes:

 http://www.orbwar.com/woolworth/

You'll have to scroll down - you can do that? Right. Now tell me how you'd fit a missile launch pad onto that wedding cake of a structure. I think you'd need more than one trip, too. "Mummy, why is that helicopter flying around that building?" "Hush, dear."

And I can just imagine the briefing.

"Now, Technician Jones, I want you to set up this missile on top of this skyscraper."
(You see, the real high ups have no technical expertise. They have to employ techies.)
"Right sir. Where shall I point it?"
"See that building over there?"
"The World Trade Center, sir?"
"That's it, son."
"Right, sir. Straight away, sir."

The more elaborate you get, the more people you have to involve. And you're going to tell me that not one has a guilty conscience afterwards?

Nixon couldn't even carry out a low level burglary without being caught. And you're going to tell me that a conspiracy involving airliners, missiles, NORAD, fighter pilots, air traffic control, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all will get away with it? Go back to your James Bond films. Or grow up.

sceptic


9/11 Truth Conference Opens In Tampa

09.12.2005 02:19

9/11 Truth Conference Opens In Tampa To Crowd Of 600
Mainstream Media Again Ignores Event as Censorship Spreads Across Land Like Existed In Nazi Germany

 http://www.rense.com/general69/cro.htm

And of course the "no plane at Pentagon" will be the focus of any media coverage that occurs.

1. If the perpetrators had to get rid of the passenger jet and passengers anyway, why not go ahead and crash them into the Pentagon?

2. Hundreds of people saw the 757 flying towards the Pentagon. Not one person saw it flying away. Where did it go?

Even Spooks/Trolls Can't Say What Happened


You are so full ...

09.12.2005 10:19

... of shit sceptic, it comes out of your mouth and fingers.

You constantly attack and insult people like Rense and belittle their contributions to infomation exchange - without ever producing any credible alternative.

To any who may be tempted to follow sceptics dictats for 'proper' reporting, just try these two Rense stories (one an ed piece, the other a link to a report from the Belgium tribunal site):

 http://www.rense.com/general69/hot.htm

 http://www.brusselstribunal.org/ArticlesIraq2.htm#Ismael

The first details the cowardly nature of those american journalists[sic] who refuse to question or even look at new infomation about the largest mass murder in modern amerikan history (I say modern because, if you included the racist genocidal actions of the amerikan settlers against the native amerikan population, you would have a 911 every day for a decade).

The second gives a harrowing and detailed report of the abuse of medical staff and the destruction (deliberate) of the medical infrastructure of Iraq, gives a brief run down of the huge amount of abuse and cold blooded murder of Iraq citizens by amerikan nazi stormtroopers and their puppet Iraqi waffren and, finally, gives some truely excellent links to the growing movement to bring the purpetrators to international justice.

What have you given us sceptic?

Some bizzare coincidence theories?

A few rotten links to dubious rightwing apologists?

The notion that DU is harmeless to humans (go eat some then you wanker)?

I hope justice catches up with you and those other clueless tossers who don't give a fig for the notion of truth and justice.

Now, start you usual whine ...

jackslucid
mail e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com


Righto, jack

09.12.2005 11:43

some nasty dubious rightwing links for you:


about the nasty fascist amerikkkkan nazzi stormtroopers in Afghanistan:

 http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1363276


The beeply biassed and right wing Britishy Journal of Radiology:

 http://bjr.birjournals.org/cgi/content/full/74/884/677

and the wonderful resource of Wikipedia:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Health_concerns

sceptic


rense

09.12.2005 12:07

By the way, jack, I couldn't resist going back to have another look at the rense site. Such a valuable resource.

You can read articles about:

'The Strange, Mysterious Eternal Allure Of Adolf Hitler' which concludes by saying: 'His philosophy is like a siren song, calling out to his admirers and to the millions of confused people who sense that his views of "natural laws" are correct, and are the only laws that can be understood and trusted in our multi-cultural, in harmonious and devious New World Order. The allure of Hitlerism is contagious for young and old alike.'

or

'The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals' - and they all came true!

'Churchill - Drunk With Thrill Of Genocide'

The planned Israeli invasion of America:

'Before delving any further into the detailed contingencies for Fortress Americas, it is necessary to briefly review the overall scope and sheer audacity of the Zionist plan, because this is the only way of understanding what comes next. In essence, the entire American continent, from Inuvik in northern Canada to the southern tip of Tierra Del Fuego, is to be invaded and captured for Zionist use, with the cabal exercising central command and control from New York City, currently located in the much smaller United States of America. Within this new massive fortress, the USA will be the focal point of all significant economic activities, with Canada and the former countries of Latin and South America providing the bulk of natural resources and cheap labor.
Initial military activity will consist of approximately 250,000 Mistaravim-trained Yisraelim terrorists entering the Americas by land, sea and air, thereafter splitting into cells of between four and six men, every one of them coordinated internally by various designated lodges of the B'nai B'rith Masonic order. At the same time, a further smaller block of 10,000 Yisraelim terrorists will enter Australia in order to capture and hold strategic mineral reserves, though this is an entirely separate operation that will not impact directly on the Americas. Beyond that point, strategic planning calls for the U.S. military to obey the orders of the Zionist cabal through its Yisraelim commanders, and then be used in turn as a blunt instrument to enforce 'order' across the new Fortress Americas. '

or 'Zionists Made Deal with Devil'

It's a site Goebbels would be proud of!

sceptic


Hmm

09.12.2005 12:39

The problem with sites like rense is that they are just a hotchpotch of uncorroborated single opinions. I am yet to see more than one "qualified" person allege the same theory. I find that usually indicates that that particular theory is shot full of holes.

There would be swathes of professionals queuing up to attest to the validity of the theories if there was any basis to them. Or are you suggesting that every single professional apart from these miraculous lone mavericks have been "got at" by the grand conspirators?

The mainstream media ignores these stories not because they too have all been got at, but rather by the same rational: no-one credible supports the theory, so it must be rubbish.

These conspiracy assertions are usually stylistically sensational (fictional) and obviously prejudiced in their nature. They don't even stand up to intelligent tactical scrutiny. Why fake a plane hitting a building when it's easier to hit a building with a plane? Why invent a terrorist organisation when it's easier to manipulate one that already exists? Why fake suicide bombers when there are plenty of people more than willing to do the real thing?

Why make milk out of grass when you have a cow?

Why risk a million fuck ups and an evidence trail when you don't have to?

These sites constructively assert that a sprwaling organisation of idiots was responsible for faking 9/11 etc. But these idiots are by some stroke of luck so powerfull they can create a false reality by manipulating the media.




#3g4h6j78


Try harder prat.

09.12.2005 13:41

I mean, ABC, come on!?!

So they conducted "An ABC News poll in Afghanistan" that says evrything is ok ... hilarious.

Wikapedia?!? sure you didn't write that entry yerself? (probably not, it's intelligable!).

I don't really give that much of a fuck whether or not amerikan military personel get ill or not handling the solid weapon stuff - what is more of a concern to me is the after effects of widely dispersing a mixture of very small (powderised) particles throughout civilian populations (a war crime).

Still trying with the old DU thing? You must learn to read the stuff you link to ... anyone with half a functioning brain will conclude from the article (alongside many many others from similar professional bodies - do your own research folks, it's easy enough) that DU poses a health risk from its chemical toxicity AND its radiological effects.

Many of us are still waiting for your triumphal experiment at the DU dinner table. Don't dissapoint us prat.

...

Sure you can read many strange, silly and just plain dumb pieces on the Rense site - don't you get how that works yet???

Its called freedom of speech and you are free to read it or not. You are even free to agree or disagree according to your preference, intelligence and predjudices (ie there has been no law yet demanding your obediance to one line of thought!).

Damnation by association is pretty infantile.

Now, back to the real issues. I can see by the speed of your posting that you could not have spent much time examinaing the articles I linked to (something I guessed beforehand!)

Journalists that mock their profession with inattention - even slavish devotion to government lines - sicken me.

Amerikan nazies that beat, inprision and kill medical personel during and because of their work are scum (and, presumably your mates).

...

There sure are a lot of straw men around here ...

Those claiming holographic planes have their reasons (they are called queens shillings or perhaps stupidity, probably both).

Those claiming cave dwelling arabs have their reasons also (see before!).

Those that would suggest most of the picture of the events of 911 have been coloured in are lazy fools. There are many many questions unanswered.

The government line is ludicrous and barely able to survive - where it not for regular injections of sidetracking, strawmen, disinfo, poisoning of the well, signal noise and any other discriptions of divertisments from the glaringly obvious:

FASCISM ... state and corporate power merged, reichstag moment, military conquest, divy of the spoils.

jackslucid
mail e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com


Damnation by association is damn right

09.12.2005 14:49

Any site that has an article which glorifies Hitler is damned out of its own mouth. Yu're asking us to select those articles which support your worldview and ignore the rest. The site is sick beyond belief. With very little exception it is crawling with rascist articles or just plain bonkers. Fortunately reading them takes very little time. The shower afterwards, to make oneself feel clean, takes a little longer.

DU is poisonous. So is lead. I wouldn't eat lead bullets, and I wouldn't eat DU. Are lead bullets a war crime? If DU is so nasty, point me to a RELIABLE (eg independent medical publication) source [ie not rense and its ilk) which shows significant health hazards existing in Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Iraq.

I've given you an opinion poll: can you find any contrary ones?

sceptic


Don't feed the trolls!

09.12.2005 16:40

Looks like the Jordan and Jack show are back to their old troll MO.

UNSC


are you really that dumb?

09.12.2005 17:23

Damnation by association.

First, pick your bogyman - hitler is a good choice (no chance of rehabilitating him!).

Then become illogical and hysterical and hope nobody notices.

Is that really the best you can do? I've seen you do better.

Rense.com must have upwards of 500 different writers with 500 different takes on the world. You postulate that, because one of them writes a dodgy article about hitler (link please) the rest are damned!

That is so poor. I'm not even going to grace it with further reply.

What is it with you and this overwhealming desire to soften the worlds view about dispersal of radioactive weapons within civilian populated areas? Its pathetic.

Time and time again you have been presented with solid scientifically gathered info regarding the ills of DU, a multitude of links (hint for the unfortunate rest of you reading this: 'be your own leader you feeble burkes' to quote the best bit of graphitti ever seen by this author, or in other words, use your search engines and find the info yourselves) and yet you continue to roll, like a dog rolling in cow shit, in your own fetid ignorance.

Do you work for the nuclear industry or something?

And if you seriously propose that conducting small localalised polls of hand picked Afghanies is any meaningful handle on reality then you are so far gone that someone should put you out of your (and the rest of our) misery.

Your daftness is shot with so many logical inconsistancies and fallacies, your understanding of basic science is so warped by your need to 'be right' and your knowledge of the world is so limited and ethnocentric, it would take a supreme effort just to untangle it.

Not going to make that effort for a prat like you.

But you have succeded on a minor level in distracting, diverting and irritating people away from the issues here. You must think it worth it. I don't.

And as for the 'don't feed the trolls' poster - pah! What have you ever contributed to open debate? Does one line make you a 'non troll' - to use a tortuous turn of phrase!

I'm not afraid to debate, to appear and to BE wrong, to change my mind, nor am I cowered by the attack the messenger tactic so usually employed by unremarkable minds.

And I definately don't call - as so many real 'trolls' here do - for the banning of this, the sacredness of that or the simple minded herd instinct to stay within the safe comfortable assumptions by which those that would exploit and dispose of us have created in order to futher remove us from notions of truth and justice.

I will be here long after pathetic idiots like sceptic have hung up their propagander trousers, and until the day I die I will not give up the fight against the 'quite life' mentality of those that don't give a shit about any or all life on this fragile planet.

You do bush et als work for them here if you must. It's a pity you don't see yourselves as the rest of us do - pathetic.

jackslucid
mail e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com


loony links from rense

09.12.2005 18:18

a selection of articles from rense:

 http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/jewish_dominance_in_porn.htm

 http://www.rense.com/general67/batofla.htm

 http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/scalar_wars.htm

 http://www.rense.com/general31/zionist.htm

 http://www.rense.com/general51/strange.htm

Read them and throw up.

Yes, you are judged by the company you keep.

No connections whatsoever with the nuclear industry. It's not me who keeps on spreading disinformation. I post you links, you ignore them.

Like:

 http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm

 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/1999/04/du/index.html


As for changing your mind - you have to have one first.

sceptic


Khazars - hiding behind Jocks

09.12.2005 18:18

Septic : "And you're going to tell me that a conspiracy involving airliners, missiles, NORAD, fighter pilots, air traffic control, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all will get away with it?"

So how did USAma order the U.S. Airforce to stand-down? How did he demolish THREE WTC Towers? The "official" conspiracy is infinitely more difficult - impossible in fact - to pull off other than it being an inside job! Retard.


Some other clown: "1. If the perpetrators had to get rid of the passenger jet and passengers anyway, why not go ahead and crash them into the Pentagon?

2. Hundreds of people saw the 757 flying towards the Pentagon. Not one person saw it flying away. Where did it go?"


Jeez. This shows how utterly stupid and fucked up you people really are.

1. HAHAHA. They could have got rid of the plane and passengers much more easily elsewhere, without having to worry about the airforce and a million other things. You retards don' t seem to realise that the Pentagon is and was the most heavily defended building on earth. Without it being an inside job, USAma's merry gang would have been shot down in a hail of missiles positioned around the Pentagon well before the hit..

2. HUNDREDS of eyewitnesses? Don't be a circumcised plonker, retard. Anyone who saw an airliner hit the Pentagon were planted Khazar and media shills. Many people also saw anything but an airliner hit the building. Most of the eyewitnesses only saw the explosion. And many actually said they saw a missile or small plane. Of course, these latter witnesses were never interviewed or quoted again by the Great Media Whores.

Another plonker (or maybe all these retards are one) wrote " But these idiots are by some stroke of luck so powerfull they can create a false reality by manipulating the media."

HAHAHA. Of course they are so powerful. They OWN and CONTROL the media and most of the world's money supply too. Some White House shitwad was quoted as saying recently "we create reality, now". Are you just a fool or a knave? Probably both.

Why are you Khazar-Jocks so terrified of the truth? Silly question. When the goyim (ie. cattle - this is what Gentiles are called by the Khazars) finally discover the truth, then the Khazar-shit is really going to hit the fan. If I were you, I'd get outta Dodge, pronto.

Butcher Sharon


same old same old

09.12.2005 18:48

"I will be here long after pathetic idiots like sceptic have hung up their propagander trousers, and until the day I die I will not give up the fight against the 'quite life' mentality of those that don't give a shit about any or all life on this fragile planet.

You do bush et als work for them here if you must. It's a pity you don't see yourselves as the rest of us do - pathetic."

The old "If you don't agre with us, you must be my enemies' friend. You assume because we do not agree with your baseless paranoid rantings we are agents or apologists for your "enemies". Doesn't that strike you as a somewhat childish egocentric kneejerk reaction? Could it possibly be that we aren't incognito necons out to whitewash, but rather we simply, like most people, don't believe the stuff you post.

As previously stated, there is a very good reason why the "911 Truth" movement is a marginalised minority: because it is based on unsupported speculation and very isolated professionals. The reason for that isolation is that that small minority is also barking mad. The WMD argument generated many critics of the claims against Iraq. The evidence from Abu Ghraib: many critics. White phosophous: many critics. Extraordinary rendition: many critics. All in the mainstream.

911 Truth: small minority, small support. Because it's baseless.

unsc


Fly to NY

09.12.2005 19:49

Links to Rense ? "Khazar-Jocks" ? "Don't be a circumcised plonker, retard" ?

Once you clean that neo-nazi spittle from your lips, maybe you could do me a favour. Take a commercial flight into New York and start talking loudly your various theories to anyone that will listen - and keep mentioning how you think BOMBs were used and what sort of EXPLOSIVE they were made of. That should clear up your problems up once and for all.

You know, the fact every 911 freak is a nazi reject from the x-files cutting floor is a bit suspicious. Maybe they are part of 'it' ?

Danny


I love the smelll of a flame war ...

09.12.2005 21:12

... in the ... er ... evening!

No really, it's a good thing. This is a subject that needs energy putting into it for the most obvious of reasons - have to take the risk that [one] is not always right and remember to be human and recognize fallibility in ones self.

I like this line sceptic:

"As for changing your mind - you have to have one first"

I'm sure you will not mind me using it the future (tough if you do).

I can see that you cannot yet grasp the point of free speech and it is dissapointing that you choose to collectivly punish the large amount of writers, publishers, web blogs & campaigning organisations that use the ethos of the Rense site to get their info across. Still that's your lookout - I sense that your flailing logic impresses only those already predisposed towards 'head in the sand' philosophies and 'can't happen here' shrills.

It's not the case of my enemies enemy being my friend as regards "doing bushes work", but more the fact that you help create an atmosphere where bush et al can postulate the wildest of idealogical and commercially rewarding theories safe in the knowledge that hypnotised conformists will take care of the opposition for free (perhaps you should read some schopenhuer or kuhn to see how knowledge is aquired and passed on) - so in my book that does make you apologists for bush and his cronies, ie apologists for a genuine and well formed fascist cabal.

"there is a very good reason why the "911 Truth" movement is a marginalised minority" - yes its called stupidity, blind conformity and desire for a quite life, besides if the education system in this country fails to fully equip the public brain to satisfactorily understand nuance and fallacy, in amerika it is ten times as bad (holy crap, over a quarter of 'em can't even recognise their own country on a map and you expect them to be able to think for themselves!?!)

And Danny - having read that which you have posted before, I would have expected you to understand just exactly what qualifies a person or philosophy to be classified as 'nazi like' - a racist supremacist cult based on divine favour and special qualities[sic].

That some may use these issues to advance their own sick versions of nazi like philosophies is unfortunate - if not convienient - it should not distract us from seeking truth and justice.

And as for suggesting that New Yorkers would somehow shrink from confronting these issues, not to say violently attacking their proponants - bullshit. Perhaps it is you who should get that plane ticket. I have done already, repeatedly, and can assure you that there are as many New Yorkers ready willing and able to engage as there are over here - if not more.

I'm signing off for the night now - but that doesn't give you th efloor for very long - use it wisely.

jackslucid
mail e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com


Questions not answers.

09.12.2005 21:15

What is needed is reporting on all the holes in the official story to try and find out the whole truth which I dont think we have. What we dont need is bullshit theories clogging up the internet doing nothing but hindering the truth. There needs to be a much better, bigger and indpendent enquiry into the events of 911 not a load of crap that is as dishonest as the official version. Though not through issues of national security or secrecy(or why ever else they havent given us the truth) but through either ignorance or attention seeking.

Annoyed.


Israhell

09.12.2005 22:06

Israel is the most NAZI state there has ever been.

The Hidden Tyranny:

 http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%20Pages/Harold_Wallace_Rosenthal_Interview_1976.htm

Zionist


Stop the bigger Iraq massacres then worry about 911

09.12.2005 22:17

Jack,

I'm assuming you didn't post under the pseudonymn 'Butcher Sharon'.
Sorry for smearing all the 911'ers as Rensers and WRH'ers and freaks but if you must admit the 'Butcher Sharons' do discredit your cause (as I hinted perhaps because they are paid to).

Hitler used a 'false flag' operation with an attack on a German radio station on the Polish border as a pretext to invade Poland, triggering WW2 (as far as the UK is concerned).

And conspiracies do exist. Even the official 911 spiel must be a conspiracy unless we assume that random arab passengers just simultaneously decided to hijack planes and crash them into the ground.

And the US government or various other bodies are cold-blooded enough to have committed the act - they do far worse every week somewhere.


But Kennedy died long ago and we don't know his killer though we know who it wasn't. There is a war on - a war that demands unrgent opposition, it is linked to 911 through emotion rather than substance - and hundereds of thousands of innocents have died so that our governments and corporations could gain Iraqi oil.

'TruthSeeker' once said to me that if the US public knew that their government had perpetuated 911 then there would be revolution in the strreets, when I asked what motivated her. I said 'Well, the US public knows it's government are killing more innocent Iraqis every week and yet they do nothing so to hell with the US public'.

For me, like for most of the worlds population, on the 11th of September 2001 a few thousand US citizens died from the most televisual terrorist attack in the televisual archives. Big fucking deal. More Africans died that day from the effects of global warming. and yes, that attack, whoever ordered it, was a hideous crime, but the endless and fruitless discussion of it since has served to obscure from the effects of far greater numbers of innocents murdered by the US since then in pursuit of oil.

Let's hang Bush and Blair for their obvious and undeniable slaughter of Iraqis and then we will have breathing space to work out if they also killed a few yanks. Any other response seems to me both racist and designed to distract from the current and ongoing war-crimes.

luv n peas,
Danny

Danny


Quality Debate, Eh?

09.12.2005 22:20

Our rather angry friend demands to know "So how did USAma order the U.S. Airforce to stand-down? "

And herein lies the typical problem we're all getting at. Our first question is, well did they stand down? This in turn begs the question of what the standing procedures normally are? Did the USAF keep jets on standby just for such circumstances? If so, where were the closest to NY and Washington stationed? What was the flying time? And so on.

If the conspiracy nuts could start providing such supported arguments, they might find more folk willing to listen. But its like Architect's old chestnut arguing with them about the steel - they just can't back-up their wild fancy claims!

Paranoid Pete


Calm down Pete, calm down !! haha joke

09.12.2005 22:33

"And herein lies the typical problem we're all getting at. Our first question is, well did they stand down?"
Yes they did.

"This in turn begs the question of what the standing procedures normally are? Did the USAF keep jets on standby just for such circumstances? If so, where were the closest to NY and Washington stationed? "
Minutes away. And they intercepted 63 planes the previous year in similar circumstances.

"What was the flying time? And so on."
Two or three minutes. It is the most protected airspace in the world

The official story could be true, albeit with a few understandable ommisions and lies, they could have realised they faced potentially suicidal hijackers and have been unsure how to cope with that, and have lied to cover their indescision - it would have previously been difficult for even the most jingoistic of air-commanders to order his officers to blow up a plane full of their compatriots. As they claimed to have eventually done.


However, this certainly seems irrelevant to a site like IM. However, this particular truth is irrelvant anyway because the same folk who stand accused of this relatively minor crime have admitted to killing far more people since in Iraq for no reason.

Danny


jack

09.12.2005 22:37

You missed the point. So, I'll summarise. Just because we don't believe you, doesn't make us conformist or believing of the "official version". It's as simple as that. We aren't stifling scrutiny for a quiet life; merely asking for logical scrutiny.

These theories aren't widely supported because they are quite frankly embarressing nonesense. There is no conspiracy to suppress them. There is just no uptake in supporting them. If there was hard and fast evidence, we'd see a very different story (see WMD; Gitmo; Abu Ghraib; Downing Street Memos; Stockwell- should all these things have been suppressed by the NeoFacists controlling the media?). But after over 4 years nothing has haemorraged. After 4 years there is no substantial counterargument.

There is no substantial body of professional opinion that planes didn't fly into buildings. There is no substantial body of professional opinion that a group of "Islamist" terrorists didn't do it.

All we have is a tiny minority of people (often not professionals in the field of commentary) reading tea leaves in the usual weirdness that REAL life (as opposed to thriller novels) throws up around any event.

I'm totally open to any counterargument for consideration, but so far I haven't heard anything remotely plausible.

Eyewitnesses saw planes hit the buildings. Were they all hypnotised???

Sure there are questions to be asked, but what you are offering is just daft, fantastic and ill-informed. And throwing an abusive tantrum isn't going to change anyone's mind.



unsc


The Burden Of Proof Rests Upon The PNAC Fascists

10.12.2005 00:18

We all agree that a serious independent and international investigation into what happened, which pursues all leads and options, is needed.

Right?

Begs Serious Investigation


Nice one

10.12.2005 00:27

Thanks Danny, that was a very cogent reply - leaves me with something to think about as I (really) go to bed!

Perhaps tommorow we can reach further agreement and push this thing on a bit.

Love and peas to you too.

jackslucid
mail e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com


When have I said I'm against free speech Jack?

10.12.2005 00:43

The area around the Pentagon is NOT the most heavily defended airspace in the US. Norad is designed to look outwards, at incoming aircraft. The hijacked planes turned their transponders off. It is extremely difficult to track aircraft in some of the most congested skies in the world if their transponders are off - try asking any air traffic controller. As for intercepting them - to do this you have to know where they are going. The '911research' site puts up various bogeymen, like working out the average speed of the jet interceptors and then displaying this as a fraction of their top speed.

Interceptors do not routinely sit on the runway with their engines turning. You have to brief a pilot, strap him in, let him roll, perform his checks, take off, and climb to operating altitude. It's not quite like turning the key in a car.

Korean Airlines flight 007 was shot down by Russian interceptors in 1987. It had been tracked for some time before. The Russians only just managed to get it before it left Russian airspace. And that was in Cold War days, when alert status would have been much higher.

sceptic


Unsc aka Architect ...

10.12.2005 02:47

"These theories aren't widely supported because they are quite frankly embarressing nonesense. There is no conspiracy to suppress them. There is just no uptake in supporting them. If there was hard and fast evidence, we'd see a very different story (see WMD; Gitmo; Abu Ghraib; Downing Street Memos; Stockwell- should all these things have been suppressed by the NeoFacists controlling the media?). But after over 4 years nothing has haemorraged. After 4 years there is no substantial counterargument."

- Not widely supported? How do you know? Just because they cannot be aired in the media, doesn't mean they are not widely supported. And you think the official theory ISN'T embarrassing nonsense? Read Griffin's books, FFS. Where's the "hard and fast" evidence in the official theory? Give me just one "fact" in the theory that is supported by "hard and fast" evidence. Nothing has haemorraged? Good god, man, the official story is now a bloodless corpse, and many insiders are getting the cojones to speak out - if they haven't been suicided/silenced already. Why do we need a counter-argument when the official story has been blown to bits? You expect us to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s when the official story has no "i"s and no "t"s. Apart from "shit", that is. We are trying to find out the truth, is all.

"There is no substantial body of professional opinion that planes didn't fly into buildings. There is no substantial body of professional opinion that a group of "Islamist" terrorists didn't do it."

- Substantial? True. But by whom are these "professionals" funded/paid? Have they the courage to speak out and lose their pensions? There are many professionals - airline pilots, structural engineers, physicists etc - who have spoken out and been hounded mercilously - to death some of them. That should tell you a lot, don't you think? For god's sake, man. Attaboy and his gang were liquor-drinking, womanizing, pork-eating, gambling, hopeless Cessna pilots - and this is in the mainstream media record! HEH-HEH. Some "Islamist" terrorists, they were to be sure, to be sure. And why do you always need a "professional" opinion for what is so blatantly obvious to any decent, unbiased, logical-thinking human-being?


"All we have is a tiny minority of people (often not professionals in the field of commentary) reading tea leaves in the usual weirdness that REAL life (as opposed to thriller novels) throws up around any event."

- "Professionals", again! You don't need a "professional" to tell you that the WTC crime scene was treasonously obliterated, the core steel columns - without any inspection - being shipped to blast furnaces in China and India. Now why on earth would they do that? Surely, if the towers had a construction failure, they would want to investigate very thoroughly, so that the public would be safer in the future? Usual weirdness? What? The unprecedented collapse of THREE steel-framed high-rises in ONE DAY is USUAL?


"I'm totally open to any counterargument for consideration, but so far I haven't heard anything remotely plausible."

- Bullshit. You are just playing silly-buggers.


"Eyewitnesses saw planes hit the buildings. Were they all hypnotised??? "

- No, more like plants, false-eyewitnesses. Eyewitnesses saw no planes hit the buildings. Were they all hypnotised???; Eyewitnesses saw missiles hit the buildings. Were they all hypnotised???; Eyewitnesses saw "small planes" hit the buildings. Were they all hypnotised???


"Sure there are questions to be asked, but what you are offering is just daft, fantastic and ill-informed. And throwing an abusive tantrum isn't going to change anyone's mind."

- Thousands of questions have already been asked over the last four years. And NONE have been answered by the official fairy-tale. No, what is "daft" is YOU Architect/Unsc; what is "fantastic" is the official story; and what is "ill-informed" is the public.

GWB


gwb

10.12.2005 10:13

Nice to see the textbook "paranoia of the marginalised" in accusing me of being Architect. I'm not he, but he does speak much sense.

You don't per se have to be a professional to have an opinion. You do however have to be a professional to have a professional opinion. A professional opinion carries more weight than a mere opinion because implies that the conclusion was arrived at with experience of the subject matter above and beyond the mere suspicions of any old person. In other words, the professional in his/her field has a higher chance of not talking out their arse. Note that the 9/11 Truth Movement does not enjoy widespread endorsement by the professional community. That in turn by simple arithmetic implies that they are the ones likely to be talking out their arses.

You'll notice that I cited professional opinion in the sense of negative critic peer review tendencies. I'm well aware that if too much stock is placed in the opinions of individuals you increase the risk of error (see 9/11 Truth). Are you really suggesting that every structural engineer; architect; fire officer; forensic scientist et al that do not support the 9/11 Truth Movement are in the pay or in fear of a cabal? That is a textbook case of paranoid egocentricity if you do.

I have cited numerous examples of the professional commmunity rising up against governemnt lies. It happens every day. Pick up any newspaper and you'll find an example.

Now, we get to the usual false analogue: to belittle the 9/11 Truth is not the same as denying that questions need to answered.

Was the crime scene tampered with? It would seem so. But we know nothing more than that. We don't know why. The possibilities are by the nature of the information void nigh on infinite.

A tiny amount of witnesses out of many thousands claimed to have seen missles is what you mean to say. I doubt you'll ever find a case where all eyewitnesses were reading from the same hymn sheet without lying.

You are suggesting now that all people who claim to have seen planes are plants and logically following through that all footage of the event is fakery. Any self-respecting Doctor Evil would sack the adviser that dreamt up that lunacy as a strategy. It's much easier to just fly a plane into a building. Why make your own life difficult???

You'll note that the Rense site carries links to Sakswatch stories. Do you also believe in Saskwatch? That's a serious question btw.

Tip: Bandying insults just makes you sound like somemone drowning/ in flight.

unsc


Oh Danny Boy

10.12.2005 13:09

Right Danny, lets look at your reply:

"And herein lies the typical problem we're all getting at. Our first question is, well did they stand down?"

In respect of USAF being told to stand down, you say "Yes they did". No problem. You just show me a respectable source for that information. Come on, on you go. I'm not just going tot ake your word for it.

In respect of intercept times, you say "Minutes away... And they intercepted 63 planes the previous year in similar circumstances". Right, lets have that out. Where are the bases, what are the states of combat readiness, and what are typical intercept times. And btw, where did you get the figure of 63? Are these comparable incidents? I mean, its the first I've heard of it.

"It is the most protected airspace in the world". How do you know that? Do you have something lists the defensive network around DC? In fact if so, how did you get it?


So on you go Danny. Back up your polemic.

Architect


Makes his excuses and leaves

10.12.2005 14:51

Ah, no, you aren't getting me that way. I have no interest in discussing 911 with you - but since you are here and you admit to building tall buildings then could you explain what that is all about ? I see someone is building a mile high skyscraper in Kuwait. Idiots. Do women architects also insist on building huge impractical phallic structures just a little bit bigger than the next architects or is it a guy thing ? Go on, slap it down on the table - what's the height of your tallest building ?

You know, I used to work in air-traffic control and I could pump myself up and claim that's how I know about US air-defences, but I'd hate to boast about my profession just to make myself look authoritative, that would be sad. I probably read it in a magazine, but I'm happy to back off from supplying you facts as I'm sure there are plenty of people here interested enough to do your homework for you.

Oh and your point about the time needed to scramble a fighter aircraft is wrong as well, they keep suitable aircraft up at all times.

My first and last thought on the subject of who committed the act it is too late to save anyone in that building but we could be saving folk in Iraq if we spent the same time and effort.

Danny


In other words...

10.12.2005 16:06

danny is just a troll.

unsc


These are questions ...

10.12.2005 16:07

... best put to the officials in charge (the ones that get paid from the money produced by us - ie our employees).

Those here questioning the official version want answers. Simple.

It is incumbant upon those who have offered up unsubstantiated theories (that, as Danny so rightly pointed out, have allowed the fascists in amerika to bomb and kill hundreds of thousands) to put up or shut up.

All we can do here is to seek answers and to ignore the continual harrassment by those not interested in them.

jackslucid
mail e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com


Party Troll

10.12.2005 17:19

A troll who had to get out to the shops to buy someone a book for their birthday before heading out to their party after this (Confessions of a Justified Sinner if you must know, quite approriate). I made the mistake of popping into this thread simply to say it was an unimportant distraction. Backing you up unsc in case you hadn't noticed, you treacherous khazar-jock you. Yes, I shouldn't have responded to Paranoid Pete since I had no intention of getting drawn into this dog-fight but I was reading the thread when he posted his comment and I knew the answers. I'll take a slap on the wrist and withdraw those comments rather than defend them, so if they changed anyones mind about anything, they weren't intended to. I really don't have time to find links to web-sites that back up what I said nor do I know which ones would be deemed 'respectable' nor do if I know if this information is public domain but I suspect I wasn't exposed to any state secrets in my crappy little career.

"I am so afraid that I listen to you,
Your sun glassed protectors they do that to you.
It’s their ways to detain, their ways to disgrace,
Their knee in your balls and their fist in your face.
Yes and long live the state by whoever it’s made,
Sir, I didn’t see nothing, I was just getting home late."

Danny


Which questions have been left unaswered?

10.12.2005 17:29

Anyone got any more?

sceptic


Well, Danny

10.12.2005 18:48

39 storeys, as it happens. And no, I can't see why anyone would want to build a mile-high tower block either given the cost and technical issues. All I can think of are medieaval Italian families trying to outdo each other with towers as a social symbol. But there you go.

Incidentally, for those of you who think these structures are indestructably designed then you might want to look at:

 http://www.duke.edu/~hpgavin/ce131/citicorp1.htm

 http://www.crosscurrents.org/kremer2002.htm

This elicted considerable discussion in the architectural and engineering professions (in stark contrast to WTC, it must be said).

Architect


jackslucid

10.12.2005 19:07

There is a difference between seeking answers you most want to hear and asking for evidence. Not all answers are true.

Rense concerns itself with "answers", not evidence. They happen to be the "answers" you are seeking: nothing more significant than that.

Some of us are seeking evidence.

If you feel harrassed by such observations, I recommend you meditate on the reasons why that should be so.


P.S. Danny- All we are saying, is give peas a chance (c)

unsc


A meaningless statement

10.12.2005 20:45

... in itself:

"Rense concerns itself with "answers", not evidence."

Rense.com is a conduit for many opinions and their authors. It is a useful tool, not a panacea, all seeing orical or metatron. If you expect such absoulutist mediums and consequent infallabilty, try religion.

Nobody is making you read it.

jackslucid
mail e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com


jackslucid

11.12.2005 00:14

I think your favoured sources of "answers" have more in common with religion that empiricism.

unsc


Answer GWB's question, retards

11.12.2005 00:21

GWB wrote: "Where's the "hard and fast" evidence in the official theory? Give me just one "fact" in the theory that is supported by "hard and fast" evidence. "

Well, come on then, retards. Letsbee-Avenue.

Donald von Aspartame Rumsfeld


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

11.12.2005 01:04

Architect/Unsc: "It's much easier to just fly a plane into a building. Why make your own life difficult??? "

HAHAHAHAHAHA. That's the point, dickhead. It is NOT "easier to just fly a plane into a building". The hijackers - trained only on turbo-prop Cessnas, FFS - would have had to outwit the entire U.S. Airforce in the most heavily defended sector in the whole USA! Probably the most heavily defended civilian airspace in the world, in fact.

First they would have had to hijack the planes - NOT and easy task - especially with box-cutters, tee-hee. Then subdue the rest of the crew and passengers and not let them make impossible cell-phone calls. FOUR times. With military precision. And last but not least, fly hundreds of miles with uncanny accuracy into the Twin Towers, while avoiding the 24/7 NYC Port Authority fully-armed air-response helicopters.

Much easier, the retard says!!!. Grow up, pal.

The Red Baron


Ol' Red

11.12.2005 08:59

Red Baron should try reading the thread a little better before he brings things already dealt with back into play:

1. If its " NOT "easier to just fly a plane into a building" then I have to hand it to the CIA (or whoever) for having managed to hoodwink the entire international airline industry. Hell you would have thought that at least a few of the airline pilots out there (there must be tens of thousands), especially in less friendly countries, might have gone public, eh?

2 "would have had to outwit the entire U.S. Airforce in the most heavily defended sector in the whole USA! Probably the most heavily defended civilian airspace in the world". See above - lets have your evidence for response times, intercept protocols, and the like. Come on mate, you must be basing your assertion on something.

3 "First they would have had to hijack the planes - NOT and easy task - especially with box-cutters, tee-hee". Well firstly the Palestinians never seemed to ahve great problems back in the 70s and 80s, and secondly lets be quite clear here - a "box cutter" is a stanley knife, weapon of choice for your average British Ned and the fatal instrument in an amazingly high number of UK murders.

4. "impossible cell-phone calls". See above thread. I think you'll find that mobile 'phones DO work on 'planes.

5. Hey, at last, a new point - "while avoiding the 24/7 NYC Port Authority fully-armed air-response helicopters". Well first of all, tell us more about there 'copters. Do they exist or are they another figment of your fevered imagination? What does "fully armed" mean? DO they really have air to air missiles capable of bringing down large jet liners? Are the pilots trained for such interception? I mean, are you suggesting they've a couple of Apache gunships just hovering over NY?

You're either the kind of nut that grasps onto the 911 consipracy theories with a religious fervour unencumbered by any meaningful grasp of evidencial issues - and this is a distinct possibility - or, and this is my favourite, you're just stiring it. At least Jack comes up with the bones of an argument and some attempts to back it up.


By the way, me and Unsc - not the same person, pal. There are LOADS of us think you guys are nuts.

Architect


The Red Baron

11.12.2005 11:45

Once agin, I'm not Architect...

It's rather amusing how certain people are stuck in a vicous circle of false analogues. That I state it is easier to fly a plane into a building logistically than to fake said act is not to endorse any other story. It is a statement purely relying on its own merits. You assume that to believe that 3 planes hit three buildings is to endorse that al qaeda did it. It's not an endorsement of any other related theories. (N.B. Donald von Aspartame Rumsfeld)

However, on that point. You seem overlook the point that perhaps these people DID do it. That perhaps we have been lied to about their capabilities. I have no proof of that, so I don't seriously offer it as anything other than speculation. There possibilities are endless: perhaps they were trained to the level professional pilots. Perhaps they were Israeli. Perhaps they were duped by the CIA. Perhaps they were who we are told they were! I haven't seen a shred of evidence to the contrary yet.

To fake a jet liner hitting a building. A list of logistical problems that merely spring to he untrained mind:

1. Images: notroiosly difficult to convincingly fake. A missile travels considreably faster than a jet liner.

2. Witnesses. There is a unpreventable risk of footage of the real event being widely wintessed and recorded (especially considering the buildings are a tourist attraction)

3. Disposal of the planes, passengers and crew of the flights that were witnessed checking in and departing (ATC; baggage; passport control; military airforce... too many to bribe or bump off). How do you dispose of/fake all that lot without being rumbled?

Conclusion: it is easier to fly a plane into a building than it is to fake it.

Hijacking an undefended plane would be relatively simple if you were a trained killer. The first thing you would do is 1.) Seize several people (emotional blackmail tool) 2.) Tell everyone some bullshit story about a diversion and how everyone will be safe so long as they comply and that you mean them no harm (reassurance/hope) 3.) Cut the throat- spectacular and quite fatal- of one of the hostages and anyone who attempts to overcome if the need arises (assertion of control/ruthlessness).

I'm sure that there may be better ways to do it. But not being a professional terrorist THAT much seems obvious at least to me. There isn't much military precision needed in the concept of "I don't want to die!"

Given that the cabin crew have never been faced with even the prospect of suicidal terrorists before and that they probably weren't even aware that's what they were dealing with anyway. I would imagine their training and instinct would lead them not to challenge the terrorists. Expecting anything else is like expecting a bank teller to be able to fend of a group armed robbers.

Even soldiers are trained to surrender in such situations where they are pinned down with no feasible options.

Mobiles do work on planes. That's WHY they tell you turn them off. I know this for a fact, because I forgot to do it once and got deluged with text messages on the descent into Heathrow after two weeks abroad.









unsc


Anyhow ...

11.12.2005 16:34

We all agree that a serious independent and international investigation into what happened, which pursues all leads and options, is needed.

Right?

al Qaeda = CIA/Mossad


!

11.12.2005 20:46

With a moniker like "al Qaeda = CIA/Mossad" I dread to think what your idea of "serious" would be!

*sniggers*

unsc


What's the point?

11.12.2005 21:34

What's the point of this serious international inquiry then? No matter what it says, you'll never be content. It will always be a fiddle....witnesses will always be got at....it will always have been a missile....and so on. You guys have started with an answer and worked backwards.

It'll be as bad as the umpteen Kennedy inquiries.

And in any event it will NOT look at the key issue - which is how the Bush administration used this as an excuse to streamroller a war against Iraq despite the fact the Madman Hussein had nothing to do with 911 (lets call it 119, just to annoy the yanks).

Paranoid Pete


...

11.12.2005 22:41

Yeah, an inquiry into how the Iraq War came about (the WMD & Saddam/Bin Laden association lies) is far more important. If11/9 was an inside job then it was merely a pretext for the war.

We all know about the lies and what they were. What we need is people tried and convicted for them, for Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Rendition, torture.

If 11/9 was an inside job, I doubt we'll stand a chance of getting close to the truth about the who's who. The chances of there being a massive conspiracy are miniscule and absurd.

The only way I can see them pulling it off is if a very small group manipulated the people who flew the planes into the buildings. All this fakery stuff is total schoolboy fantasy straight out of Hollywoodland: there is no short supply of people willing to blow themselves up to manipulate.

All this stuff about the CIA & PNAC all make for very exciting bedtime stories, but is logistically unfeasible. Only an wreckless idiot would go to the trouble of involving a lot of people knowledgably in it unneccessarily. And telling the USAF to stand down; firing missiles and faking videos and planting witnesses is all a LOT more people than need to be involved. A lot more than say, getting that Bin Laden boy to scratch the Bush family's back for them. Or getting a few trusted people to turn a blind eye to create an opportunity.

I seriously doubt that you can expect involving vast amounts of people in an act of treasonous covert mass murder without *someone* spilling the beans. Four years on and no singing, is evidence enough to me that these assertions of sprawling complicity are unfounded.

A lot of people stood to gain a lot from 11/9. But that doesn't prove anything. It can all be as likely turning events to their advantage and/or covering their incompetent arses.

If it was an inside job, then I seriously doubt we'll get any further than we did with JFK.

Here's a little tip on forming theories. Formulate it and then try your best to break it! What we keep being offered in the way of theories can be too easily broken with just a pinch of common sense.

You aren't more insight or more intelligent or more brave than us, you are just barking and woefully lacking in imagination- regurgitating hollywood thrillers doesn't equal wit.

unsc


NOT ONE answer

12.12.2005 01:16

You paid-shills sure the hell come out of the slime and onto all 9/11 threads. I hope they don't pay you well, as your gibberish is hilarious at times.

As for one clown's description of how four/five hijackers could overcome a crew of nine and scores of passengers, I've never laughed so loudly in years. With boxcutters - which are carpet-cutting knives with small blades. Thanks for that, dickhead, it made my day. Palestinians did hijack airliners - but with GUNS, MACHINE GUNS, KALASHNIKOVS.

Cell-phone calls do NOT work above 8000 - 10,000ft, and only intermittently below that altitude. See  http://www.physics911.net/cellphoneairliners . New - NEW - technology will be available in 2006 to enable cell-phone calls at altitude. This technology was not available on 9/11/2001. See  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50320-2004Dec9.html  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/12/15/MNGUMAC6LB1.DTL  http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html
just three in thousands of articles.

As for the rest of your pathetic gobbledegook, puhleeze, I will not lower myself to answer such childish, inane comments. Look them up for yourselves as you seem soooooo interested in 9/11. Try Googling sometime.

GWB wrote: "Where's the "hard and fast" evidence in the official theory? Give me just one "fact" in the theory that is supported by "hard and fast" evidence. "

NOT ONE answer. NOT ONE "FACT" IN THE OFFICIAL STORY CAN BE BACKED UP BY "HARD AND FAST" EVIDENCE. I think we can safely conclude: the official fairy-tale of 9/11 is just that - a fairytale. Time for you LOADS of MONKEY NUTS to find a different job, isn't it?

Mossad motto: By Deception Shalt Thou Make War


I am really appreciating ...

12.12.2005 11:02

... both the length and breadth of this thread, the amount and different takes of the various posters & the oppotunity this throws up for advancing knowledge and understanding of this area.

I don't mind at all the repeated innanities of some, nor the complete inability of some others to address themselves fully to the pertinant areas.

The fact that there are those asking difficult questions of those of us unsatified with the official version and of the opinion that we are being lied to on a monumental scale, is a good thing. We need to sharpen our analytical tools and to fully load our weapons of choice, namely, the pen and its slow - but inevitable - fine grind of the facts and their settings.

One might look favourably upon those such a sceptic, who serve as useful idiots here, concentrating our energy and focus ... were it not for the fact that theirs is the default position of the body politic ... analcephalectic!

My thanks to Danny, who has clarified (in my mind) the issue of the importance of the setting of these arguments:

... 119 is actually less of an outrage against humanity than the monster it spawned, which unleashed death and destruction against the unprotected populations of oil rich countries ...

... its importance lies in the notion that, if and when the culpability of those responsible is strongly identified and addressed full faced by the legal bodies so hard fought for, for generations of campaigners not unlike us, then the whole fabric of the nasty medusa like fascism sweeping to power, and ever emboldened by their apparent successes, will begin to crumble.

Those that have formented war to gain power and profit have taken an almighty risk in doing it under our noses in the obvious and disgusting way that they have. This chink in their defences is vital ... it must be exploited to the full if we are to use it to springboard our search for justice for those murdered for oil and israel.

The amerikan people maybe many things and no different to any other peoples, but for the extremity in which they have colluded with their ignorance in the oppression and exploitation of the world. To be able to use the outrage and clamour for justice for the victims of 119 in order to seek and obtain justice for the numerically superior numbers of victims of amerikan imperialism is an unprecidented opportunity ...

... we must exploit it to the full and never let up in the face of harrassment, ridicule and violent opposition ...

No justice, no peace.

jackslucid
mail e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com


your focus on personal attacks isn't interesting

12.12.2005 11:10

Have a link to the anatomy of the artery that lurks just millimeters below the skin of your throat. Find someone with even a notional understanding of the subject and ask them what happens when this is cut.

 http://www.bartleby.com/107/144.html

Have a link to the principals of field dressing a deer. Note that they don't assert that anything other than a "sharp knife" is required to effectively exsanguinate, disembowl, flay and dismember.

 http://www.thejump.net/dress/fielddressing.htm

There is nothing remarkably different in the physics of doing this to any large mammal. The windpipe is a bit tougher than than the other tissue. But cutting that would cause a hideous rasping and spluttering noise. The tendons are the toughest but still doable with patience even with a little craft knife- that means that you even take a head right off with a bit of elbow grease and time.

You obviously have never witnessed/experienced any throat cuttings. I could post links to snuff (trophy) videos of human beings (soldiers) having their throats cut (by islamic fighters incedentally) to demonstrate how psychologically affecting the process is for the viewer. But I don't think such things should be posted on IM.

Now apply that information to a situation where say three people are still being held by terrorists after one person had already been killed thus, and tell us all that you'd be Bruce Willis and make a move and cause that to happen to someone else and then yourself. Apart from that, you live in a fantasy world of how people behave- people rarely put their necks on the line even when they vastly outnumber a drunk using his fists. Hitler and his mates had a nation of millions under his control.

Any old suitably-shaped piece of metal can have an edge put on it. The harder the metal the better the blade. You could cut a throat with a sharpened spoon.

Above that, you could kill a person quickly by breaking their neck. The visual spectacle isn't anywhere near as gruesome as cutting the carotid.

What height were the planes at when the calls were allegedly made?

The rest of my gibberish must be so insane that you couldn't counter it in any form. All you can offer are the tantrums of the deluded backed into a corner, as per usual.

No-one comes to IM to spread disinformation on behalf of the powermongers. You'll get the occassional policeman/woman gathering info on demos and people silly enough to advertise their misdeeds personally. But other than that this place is of no consequence to them whatsoever. IM flouted at least one D-notice and no-one cared.

Sorry, to burst your fevered paranoid (in the mentally ill sense of the word) bubble no-one is watching you and no-one is in fear of you.

P.S. Do Mossad use Old Modern English as their official language, or is that just someone badly translating the Hebrew to make it sound more dramatic???






Unsc a.k.a Nikolai Poliakov


Cell phones......

12.12.2005 17:25

.....don't work above 8000-10,000ft, and only intermittently below that altitude. NICE ONE.

"Loosening the ban could benefit wireless carriers such as Sprint Corp. as travelers use in-flight time to work and communicate, though most cell phones won't work once a plane reaches its cruising altitude, said Sprint spokeswoman Mary Nell Westbrook. "Once you get to a certain height, you are no longer in the range of the cellular network" because cell phone towers aren't built to project their signals that high, she said. The technology is "difficult now, but it's not something that can't happen in the future."

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50320-2004Dec9.html

"Today's vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet - they weren't in the past - and whether they'd mess up ground- based communications."

 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/12/15/MNGUMAC6LB1.DTL

The official fairytale believers have been pulverised by the controlled demolitions of the Inside-Jobbers.

Well done, guys!


Just passing through


Cellphones

12.12.2005 18:56

I don't whether it's possible or not. But someone was talking to the families on the ground. Now, this could either have been the people on the plane, or actors faking it.

Perhaps the people on the plane were actually on the ground, and being coerced into making the calls. And no one of them let something slip past their minders? If they were actors, then they would have to be extraordinarily good, and extremely well briefed on the family background. Whichever was the case, the families were clearly talking to someone.

10 000 feet - the aircraft would have to descend to reach their targets at ground elevel. And it's quite possible that the aircraft were taken to a lower altitude to be clear of the commercial traffic.

So - if phones were not possible - who were the families on the ground talking to?

sceptic


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Box cutters? Aye, right...

12.12.2005 19:18

Lets get this straight. Box cutters, as our little American friends call them, are Stanley Knifes. Those of us who know the harm which can be done by these would agree that the innocuous title "Box Cutters" is misleading.

But don't take my word for it:

 http://www.bridgehousegrants.org.uk/docs/Fear_and_Fashion.pdf

 http://www.geoffthompson.com/guest_writers/LizClarke/Guest_Writers_Liz_Clarke_page6.htm

 http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1999/06/12/ihead.htm


Paranoid Pete


Zzz...

12.12.2005 19:31

 http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm

The planes in NY would have had to come down to below 1360 feet in their approach.

No-one has proven that the calls were impossible yet. Not even the tests carried out on the sites linked can say anything conclusively.

Someone needs to know the position of the aircraft exactly at the time of the calls and determine whether it was possible or not. If it were possible they'll have to be able to repeat it.

The idea that the calls were faked is just silly. What's the point of faking calls??? Just another thing that could fuck up and backfire! Dr Evil would throw you in the shark tank for suggesting it.

Anyway, I have personally used a mobile on the top of Ben Nevis (4400 ft) so some of the assertions being made by conspiracy loons is just plain false.

M


Hide 1 hidden comment or hide all comments