The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

Diogenes

UnHolyMoe wrote:

At the end of the day the only thing that verify what really collapsed the buildings would be to forensically test the debris. But unfortuantely the crime scene evidence was quickly gathered up and destroyed. I wonder why?

As of March 2006, there was still debry that needed cleaning up, so thats pretty slow by anyones standards.

Also what forensic tests would satisfy you, and what exactly are you looking for?

UnHolyMoe

Diogenes wrote:

Also what forensic tests would satisfy you, and what exactly are you looking for?

Explosive residues.

Diogenes

UnHolyMoe wrote:

Explosive residues.

And what would be the chemcial properties of such a residue?

Flyingfish

Diogenes wrote:

And what would be the chemcial properties of such a residue?

Have some video with great info on that topic (see below - jump to 49 mins for specifics asked above)

I hope it's OK to post video links here? Does anyone know if this is a problem?
If it is a problem, please let me KNOW and I'll remove them immediately.

I was banned without ANY warning or email / PM etc from Politics.ie for posting - (reason given was using links to Google video) on the subject of 9/11 and particularly the question above about physical evidence. Other users at the computer Lab asking about it were also banned without ever posting any video links. The content was completely stripped from my posts.

The atmosphere here does seem a lot more open minded! Maybe I started in the wrong place. Anyway....

[Edited] copy " Steven E Jones " into Google Video - select first result

BYU Physics professor and founder of SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH Steven E Jones presents his presentation on the collapse of WTC Buildings 1,2, ... all » and 7 on 9/11. A very informative and scientific presentation that raises serious questions about the official account of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7

Hoping for a civil, informed and intelligent debate about the subject
FlyingFish

Nick_oliveri

Flyingfish wrote:

I hope it's OK to post video links here? Does anyone know if this is a problem?

Oh it can be a problem alright!!

Flyingfish wrote:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586&q=Steven+E+Jones
Hoping for a civil, informed and intelligent debate about the subject
FlyingFish

Theres been plenty of debate about it. Heres hoping the link you posted isn't one has has been posted or linked to before.

Flyingfish

Thanks for the reply nick!

What's is the problem with video links? Stress on the server or something like that?

OK...Instead from now on I'll give the search query text and people can copy and paste it into google video themselves. I have some great info to post.

Worth mentioning that some (only some) of my posts on politics.ie were stripped out even some posts without any video links. Think the moderator Andrew is not what you might call open minded on the matter

billy the squid

Your gripes with the moderators of politics.ie do not belong here.

As for video links, they may have been removed due to possible copywrite infringement.

Flyingfish

OK! Back to topic.....

Oracle

Great that this sticky is here, I must admit I was very sceptical at first about anything other than two planes hitting the twin towers. But since watching my first video on Google I've become convinced it was a massive cover-up. In fact I remember distinctly on the day of 9-11 thinking to myself, that building looks like it's being demolished with explosives but convincing myself otherwise because of the shocking media coverage and pictures of the actual "aircraft".

I still have a few unanswered questions about the conspiracy theory. For example, if something other than an aircraft hit the towers where are the people who boarded the original flight? If something other than an aircraft hit the pentagon where are the people who boarded that original flight? What about the flight crew and the actual aircraft? Where are they? Were the airlines involved, did they know anything? If they were that would mean the airports had to have known something, or noticed something unusual. I haven't seen much on these questions but I'm sure there are answers.

Diogenes

Flyingfish wrote:

BYU Physics professor and founder of SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH Steven E Jones

Retired physics professor actually. And his field was cold fusion not pratical physics like civil engineering. Jone's own department rubbished his paper, and he was critictised by nearly every HoD in the physics department. Jones was placed on suspended academic leave for a number of months, while his own department examined his paper, a paper I might add that
Jones did not present for peer review in any major physics or engineering journal.


Jones has quietly resigned, a result that pleases both parties, any academic review of his case would put his paper under intense spotlight from the world of physics, which it cannot survive. And BYU get rid of Jones, before anyone asks, "How did you make that ninny a head of department?

Diogenes

Oracle wrote:

Great that this sticky is here, I must admit I was very sceptical at first about anything other than two planes hitting the twin towers. But since watching my first video on Google I've become convinced it was a massive cover-up. In fact I remember distinctly on the day of 9-11 thinking to myself, that building looks like it's being demolished with explosives but convincing myself otherwise because of the shocking media coverage and pictures of the actual "aircraft".

Google video...Larry Sergy, what have you done.....

Okay Orcale, would you care to look at the flip side as well?

Was the film you watched called Loose Change or 911 Mysteries?

And before we go on

911myths.com

It debunks so many conspiracy theorist "facts"

I still have a few unanswered questions about the conspiracy theory. For example, if something other than an aircraft hit the towers where are the people who boarded the original flight? If something other than an aircraft hit the pentagon where are the people who boarded that original flight? What about the flight crew and the actual aircraft? Where are they? Were the airlines involved, did they know anything? If they were that would mean the airports had to have known something, or noticed something unusual. I haven't seen much on these questions but I'm sure there are answers.

Actually there aren't conspiracy theorists are notriously bad at giving solid answers or evidence to support their claims.

oscarBravo

Oracle wrote:

...if something other than an aircraft hit the towers where are the people who boarded the original flight? If something other than an aircraft hit the pentagon where are the people who boarded that original flight? What about the flight crew and the actual aircraft? Where are they?

The logical answer to your questions is: four airplanes crashed into the WTC, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania with the hijacked passengers and crew on board.

Flyingfish

Diogenes wrote:

Retired physics professor actually. And his field was cold fusion not pratical physics like civil engineering. Jone's own department rubbished his paper, and he was critictised by nearly every HoD in the physics department. Jones was placed on suspended academic leave for a number of months, while his own department examined his paper, a paper I might add that
Jones did not present for peer review in any major physics or engineering journal.

Jones has quietly resigned, a result that pleases both parties, any academic review of his case would put his paper under intense spotlight from the world of physics, which it cannot survive. And BYU get rid of Jones, before anyone asks, "How did you make that ninny a head of department?

Actually... his specialty is: Metal-catalyzed fusion, Archaeometry and Solar energy. His research group at the time of his departure actively dealt with: Atomic, Molecular, and the Optical physics. Note Metal-catalyzed fusion.

In relation to the Peer Review issue:
"Ad hominems/false accusations in the R&W essay

R&W write: “Jones champions peer review, yet he has never presented his 9/11 paper at a scientific conference despite at least one invitation, and his journal is not peer reviewed by scholars in the same discipline.”

NOT TRUE! I did indeed present my paper (as much of it as I had time for) at the Utah Academy of Sciences in April 2006, a fact which is announced on the very first page of my Answers to Questions and Objections (AnsQ). Much of the specific, scientific data given in AnsQ was presented at the Utah Academy of Sciences meeting. My abstract for the meeting was submitted, reviewed and accepted for presentation at that meeting. The data are now in the public domain.

R&W’s final statement quoted above, is also not true: “his journal is not peer reviewed by scholars in the same discipline.” First, how would they know that, since by long-standing convention in scholarly journals, reviewers are not named? The fact is, we the editors do invite reviewers in the same discipline to do reviews. One of these reviewers is a member of our Editorial Board -- Joseph Phelps, who is a Charter Member of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Two reviewers on recent papers are Ph.D. physicists at a major University who are not even listed among the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, but they were willing to do reviews of papers submitted to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and they performed admirably. And of course, it is not accurate to speak of “his journal” as they do – there are two editors and neither of us owns the journal."

more:
http://stj911.org/jones/Jones_Replyto_Reynolds_Wood.html

Dr Jones is by no means discredited. Misinformation is NOT helpful.

oscarBravo

Flyingfish wrote:

Note Metal-catalyzed fusion.

Which has got what, exactly, to do with 9/11?

Flyingfish

Jones with a specialization in metal-catalyzed fusion is the perfect person to address the pools of molten metal found at WTC1, 2, and 7, and did so in “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?”

In summary....He was more than competent enough to conduct an analysis of the WTC metal.

oscarBravo

Flyingfish wrote:

Jones with a specialization in metal-catalyzed fusion is the perfect person to address the pools of molten metal found at WTC1, 2, and 7, and did so in “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?”

In summary....He was more than competent enough to conduct an analysis of the WTC metal.

Hangonasec. Are we claiming that the pools of molten metal at the WTC were caused by nuclear fusion, now?

Do you even know what metal-catalysed fusion is? The fact that it has the word "metal" in it doesn't make it anything to do with metallurgy.

bonkey

Flyingfish wrote:

R&W write: “Jones champions peer review, yet he has never presented his 9/11 paper at a scientific conference despite at least one invitation, and his journal is not peer reviewed by scholars in the same discipline.”

NOT TRUE! I did indeed present my paper (as much of it as I had time for) at the Utah Academy of Sciences in April 2006,

So Jones agrees that his paper has not been presented in full, but does point out that an unquantified amount of the paper has been presented. I wonder why he doesn't quantify how much he presented. Did he get 95% through it? Did he just have time to mention that the paper existed and give the sketchiest outline of its content? Or somewhere in between?

Strange how he's claiming his situation has been misrepresented, but neglects to provide full and clear information himself.

Much of the specific, scientific data given in AnsQ was presented at the Utah Academy of Sciences meeting.

AnsQ? Thats not the paper. Its therefore irrelevant to the claims about the paper.

The data are now in the public domain.

Yes they most certainly are. And in the public domain, they've been rubbished as well as accoladed. However, as the retired professor is well aware, the entire point of peer review is that it is a well-established, clearly-defined process (although not without its flaws) which is used to evaluate scientific work which is necessary because any measurement of worth from the public domain is suspect for a number of reasons as well as being subject to any flaw in the peer-review process.

The "its in the public domain" defense is a bit like someone arguing that its not important they didn't have their seatbelt on whlist driving, because they were ready to grab on to their seat really tightly in the case of an accident. The only people who'd buy into it are those who don't understand why a seatbelt is considered to be a necessary and good thing in the first place.

R&W’s final statement quoted above, is also not true: “his journal is not peer reviewed by scholars in the same discipline.” First, how would they know that, since by long-standing convention in scholarly journals, reviewers are not named?

Partly, because by long-standing convention, reviewers are chosen from the same discipline. Partly because they also know that the document wasn't submitted for peer review through any established channels in the first place .

Rather, Jones claimed it had been peer-reviewed by his fellow "scholars for truth" - a group which did not contain any similarly qualified people at the time.

If I tell you that one or more of a group of 100 men reviewed this post, you could state with absolute certainty that no woman was involved in that review process. Jones is arguing that because you don't know which man or men were involved, you can't possibly say that there wasn't a woman!!!

The fact is, we the editors do invite reviewers in the same discipline to do reviews.

Note the use of the word we. In a proper peer review, Jones can have no input whatsoever in the selection of his reviewers. None.

Indeed, part of the entire point of the anonimity that he has already claimed is an integral part of the process is to ensure that the author cannot know who reviewed their paper. Jones knows this. Jones therefore knows that if he had a hand in teh selection, or knows who the reviewers were, then it wasn't a proper peer review.

One of these reviewers is a member of our Editorial Board -- Joseph Phelps, who is a Charter Member of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers.

He's also 82 years old, and runs a golf course in Florida, apparently. That the best you can do?

Two reviewers on recent papers are Ph.D. physicists at a major University who are not even listed among the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, but they were willing to do reviews of papers submitted to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and they performed admirably.

But dd they review your paper, Professor? Its not relevant what else they've done. Did they review your paper?

And of course, it is not accurate to speak of “his journal” as they do – there are two editors and neither of us owns the journal."

Two editors...so when "we editors" select people for review, that suggests that you have to have been involved in the selection of reviewers for your own paper. Even if you weren't, then your co-editor and (at the time) good friend did it. Neither option is sufficient for a proper peer review.

So we're left with an awkward choice here. either Jones doesn't know what a proper peer review is, or he knows that he hasn't had one and admits as much as part of his defence against the claim that he hasn't had one!!!

Dr Jones is by no means discredited.

Yes, he is. His own defence against the claims levelled against him is sufficient to do that without even analysing the claims themselves. The only people it will fool are those who are't interested in actually finding out what a peer review is, but will rather listen to his call. Unsurprisingly, there will be a strong correlation between those people and the group who believe that because he's a professor his claims that its a scientific paper must be true and also mean that the paper is based on good science....rather than going away and checking the science themselves.

Misinformation is NOT helpful.

Agreeed. May I suggest that you apply that standard against Jones' claim that his paper has been properly peer-reviewed, and the details of what a proper peer review is. Incidentaly, Jones or any supporter of his cannot be the ones who tell you what a proper peer review is. I'd also avoid going to his critics if you need to find out. Just read up on what the peer-review process is from a third-party (and therefore presumably unbiased) source.

Diogenes

Flyingfish wrote:

Actually... his specialty is: Metal-catalyzed fusion, Archaeometry and Solar energy. His research group at the time of his departure actively dealt with: Atomic, Molecular, and the Optical physics. Note Metal-catalyzed fusion.

Do you even know what metal catallyzed fusion means? I doubt many people do, but I suspect you think it means something about fusing two bits of metal together.

In relation to the Peer Review issue:
"Ad hominems/false accusations in the R&W essay

R&W write: “Jones champions peer review, yet he has never presented his 9/11 paper at a scientific conference despite at least one invitation, and his journal is not peer reviewed by scholars in the same discipline.”

NOT TRUE! I did indeed present my paper (as much of it as I had time for) at the Utah Academy of Sciences in April 2006, a fact which is announced on the very first page of my Answers to Questions and Objections (AnsQ). Much of the specific, scientific data given in AnsQ was presented at the Utah Academy of Sciences meeting. My abstract for the meeting was submitted, reviewed and accepted for presentation at that meeting. The data are now in the public domain.

Thats not peer review, thats review prior to a conference, hardly anything near full vigirous peer review.

Heres some more articles discrediting Jones
http://www.debunking911.com/civil.htm

or

In his paper, Professor Jones often uses Professor David Ray Griffin as an authority on certain subjects. The so called "Squibs", "Conservation of Momentum and energy" and the speed of the collapse. But what is he a professor of? He sounds like a professor of physics or civil engineering specializing in controlled demolition. But as our friends above note, the experts are not really experts on the subjects at hand. Dr Griffin is a professor emeritus of philosophy of religion and theology, at the Claremont School of Theology in Claremont, California.

more

Their most famous member, and co-founder, is Steven Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University. He has become famous for publishing a paper on the WTC collapse. Thus far this paper though, has only been reviewed, not in a journal on physics, or structural engineering, but in a Marxist journal of political economy. BYU itself has rejected his work. Dr. Jones primary research has been, not in structural engineering or the reaction of metals to heat, but in cold fusion, which even in the physics community is regarded as bordering on alchemy. Even more bizarrely, his other famous published work was one right out of the World Weekly News, claiming that Jesus visited Central America based on ancient Indian artwork.

Here's a breakdown of the Scholar's members rolls

I came up with a list of 76 members, expecting it to be full of Ivy League engineers and distinguished Middle Eastern scholars, experts bent on proving that the US government, and not Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Centers. I was wrong.

Out of the 76 "experts" the most common academic discipline was philosophy, with 9 members, including a co-founder. Since 7 members did not even list an academic discipline, this was 1/7 of their credentialed membership. English/literature and psychology came in next with 5 members each. Even theology and "humanities" came in with 4 and 3 members respectively. Among actual scientific fields, physics was way in front, with 5 members, including the aforementioned Dr. Jones. I am not sure as to their academic credentials though, at least one of the "physicists", Jeffrey Farrer, isn't even a professor, he is a lab manager at BYU. One has to wonder whether Steven Jones' janitor is also listed as an associate member?

So how many engineers do they have? Out of the 76, a grand total of 2. Jean-Pierre Petit, a French aeronautical engineer, who despite the obvious handicap of being French actually seems to have a relevant qualification. Curiously enough though, he doesn't seem to have written a single word on 9/11. He has written though, on a mysterious plot by the US military to bomb Jupiter with anti-matter weapons

flying fish wrote:

R&W’s final statement quoted above, is also not true: “his journal is not peer reviewed by scholars in the same discipline.” First, how would they know that, since by long-standing convention in scholarly journals, reviewers are not named? The fact is, we the editors do invite reviewers in the same discipline to do reviews. One of these reviewers is a member of our Editorial Board -- Joseph Phelps, who is a Charter Member of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Two reviewers on recent papers are Ph.D. physicists at a major University who are not even listed among the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, but they were willing to do reviews of papers submitted to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and they performed admirably. And of course, it is not accurate to speak of “his journal” as they do – there are two editors and neither of us owns the journal."

Okay firstly I can only assume that he is discussing the peer review process for "his" journal the scholars for 9/11 truth journal.

This is not evidence that Jones presented his paper for peer review, this is Jones defending the Peer review process for his own journal;

A peer review process that was so biased and skewed, Judy "fruitloop" Woods resigned from it

Among other activities, Jones initially was responsible for the scholars' discussion forum and he and Judy Wood instituted a "peer-reviewed" Journal of 9/11 Studies. Jones appointed the advisory editorial board, later Kevin Ryan as co-editor and chose the "peers" to review manuscripts. Peer-review normally boosts the prestige of academic articles because professors within the same discipline review manuscripts but in this case there is little or no such review, even when offered. That fact convinced Wood to resign.

In THREE CASES * count them * 1, 2, 3 * that we know about * Jones has corrupted or attempted to corrupt the membership roster by getting people listed as Full Members when they did not have the necessary credentials * AND HE KNEW IT! Who are they:

Jeffrey Farrer:
a BYU Dept. of Physics lab manager; apparently a graduate student
Doyle Winterton:
a man in his 70s who worked as a civil engineer but has no advanced
degrees and never held an academic appointment
Joseph Phillips
we don’t really know, but he might be a vineyard owner who once
got a degree in construction engineering.

In the first case, Jeffrey Farrer was listed as a Full Member until Judy Wood saw that he was ‘thanked’ as one of the students who helped in preparing Jones’ PDF. (This statement, which appeared on the cover page and which I saw myself, has since been removed.) In the latter two cases Judy and I wasted an absurd amount of time preventing those individuals from being listed as Full Members -- which you were insisting that I do on Jones’ recognizance alone -* BEFORE we even had their permission to be listed in the first place, which is a legal issue!

Now *

I have a GIGANTIC problem with the fact that the co-chair of ST911 is a PROVEN LIAR!!

All quotes from here
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

more:
http://stj911.org/jones/Jones_Replyto_Reynolds_Wood.html

Dr Jones is by no means discredited. Misinformation is NOT helpful.

brandishing out accusations that correct facts (Jones has not submitted his paper to a single reputable physics or engineering" journal) are misinfo is a little weak

flyingfish wrote:

Jones with a specialization in metal-catalyzed fusion is the perfect person to address the pools of molten metal found at WTC1, 2, and 7, and did so in “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collaps

You're going to look pretty foolish after you read the next paragraph

Our research in metal-catalyzed fusion provides strong evidence for proton emissions from metal foils bearing electro-deposited palladium, lithium, and deuterium. In using electrolytically-loaded copper foils, we are returning to our earliest experimental search for metal-enhanced fusion reactions, which began at BYU in May 1986. Our experimental setup is straightforward and easily replicated. After the electro-deposition of metals and deuterium onto copper, the foil is quickly dried then inserted into a vacuum chamber. An electrical current is typically applied across the foil, and results are studied using two 900 mm2 ion-implanted detectors. A large cosmic-ray veto counter is used to reduce cosmic-ray background noise. Our data clearly show charged particle emissions in the energy range expected for nuclear d-d fusion.

http://cpms.byu.edu/springresearch/abstractentry.php?id=95

Guess who wrote that? Jones' old department.

Do you see the words "molten" in there anywhere?

bonkey

Flyingfish wrote:

Jones with a specialization in metal-catalyzed fusion is the perfect person to address the pools of molten metal found at WTC1, 2, and 7, and did so in “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?”

In summary....He was more than competent enough to conduct an analysis of the WTC metal.

Two or three logical non-sequitors.

Jones is qualified to address the issue of pools of molten metal if they were caused by a metal-catalyzed fusion process. Given that Jones argues they weren't, his own hypothesis moves the event out of his field of expertise.

Secondly, if that hadn't happened, it would still mean Jones was qualified to address the question of the molten pools of metal, but says nothing about his ability to analyze the non molten metal which also forms part of his study.

Finally, none of that qualifies him to address the question of why the towers collapsed. At best, even if we ignore the first two issues, Jones could argue that thermite reactions were present. He has no qualification at all to suggest why these reactions occurred, whether they were planned or incidental, nor whether or not they played a pivotal role.

Oracle

I don't know if this has been posted here already, but I just listened to some of the Betty Ong tape (recording of flight attendant Betty Ong, who was on Flight 11.) The recording is from the 9/11 Commission hearings. I'm really surprised by how calm she sounds, her voice shows very little emotion, and no stress. There's not much discernible commotion in the background either which seems strange. I would have imagined with a couple of people stabbed on board there would be widespread passenger panic: http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-ong-tape.htm

Diogenes

Oracle wrote:

I don't know if this has been posted here already, but I just listened to some of the Betty Ong tape (recording of flight attendant Betty Ong, who was on Flight 11.) The recording is from the 9/11 Commission hearings. I'm really surprised by how calm she sounds, her voice shows very little emotion, and no stress. There's not much discernible commotion in the background either which seems strange. I would have imagined with a couple of people stabbed on board there would be widespread passenger panic: http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-ong-tape.htm

Okay Orcale, first question, is a reminder,

I asked you a few posts ago which film did you watch do you remember.

Next I'm going to ask you what is the signifigance of the above? What are you trying to suggest this signifies. I'll be helpful, and offer three plausible answers

A) Betty Ong never made that tape. A fatulous voice actor, who strangely never went to hollywood made it. Or a computer made it. A computer program that can perfectly mimic someones voice. A piece of technology that doesn't exist. But lets say it does, for shíts and giggles. The US government has this technology and they use it to fake Betty's voice. Unfortunately they're really lazy with this piece of technology and don't try and add any stress to her voice. And hey it's friday lets not bother add any of the foley footsteps, and guys with middle eastern voices shouting "Allah Akbar, and long live Saddam" that we were going to loop into the background, lets just leave it flat and atonal.

Betty Ong did make the tape. But she's a government shill, and has left her friends and family mourning her loss. She didn't bother adding any stress or tension to her voice when prerecording the piece, she, as they say in show business, "phoned" in her performance. She currently resides in beach resort in Mexico, sipping margerittas.

Or

C) Betty Ong, a terrified flight attendent, used her knowledge of the planes layout to slip into a quiet out way area of the cabin (the back of the plane as mentioned in the tape) With the terrorists securing business class and the cockpit, Betty fighting the fear and adrenaline, phoned American Airlines ticket booking. Maintaining composure in terrifying circumstances and give as much information as possible.

Which do you think Orcale or do you have a fourth hypothesis?

Flyingfish

Wow!!!

That’s am impressive amount of text & some good logic has been used in the retorts to the issue of Steven E Jones credibility. Also the quality of the debate here is very heartening to me indeed. The last thing I want is to defend something that should not be defended – I’m keeping an open mind on everything and I hope others will do the same. I will review the info quoted above (check out the objectivity of sources etc) further and reply later.

In the interest of keeping this thread moving. Please review the following video in the meantime.

Kevin Ryan ---http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032&q=kevin+ryan---

Description snippet...
"In an information-packed presentation of 58 minutes Kevin Ryan delivers a damning indictment of the official investigations of the total ... all » collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7. Ryan's solid scholarship and application of the scientific method stands in stark contrast to the official investigations, whose dishonesty and corrupt anti-scientific methods Ryan exposes in abundance."

cockmynut

Diogenes wrote:

C) Betty Ong, a terrified flight attendent, used her knowledge of the planes layout to slip into a quiet out way area of the cabin (the back of the plane as mentioned in the tape) With the terrorists securing business class and the cockpit, Betty fighting the fear and adrenaline, phoned American Airlines ticket booking. Maintaining composure in terrifying circumstances and give as much information as possible.

Which do you think Orcale or do you have a fourth hypothesis?

All three hypotheses have their flaws. Scenario two is highly unlikely. I believe the call could very easily have been faked by someone, however not by computer.

But let's analyse hypothesis C, which you obviously favour. To accept this theory, you have to simultaneously accept some very dubious "facts" which, if taken individually, could be seen as quite plausible, however when taken together, stretch even the limits of the imagination:

- Four Arabs managed to get box cutters past airport security (likely, in 2001)
- Four Arabs managed to hijack a Boeing airliner. (plausible)
- Flight crews, passengers and the pilots together offered no resistance. (plausible, but highly unlikely)
- John Ogonowski (captain) was a US Air Force fighter pilot in Vietnam and Tom McGuinness (co-pilot) flew F-14 fighters for the US Navy. Both men were allegedly incapacitated. (unlikely)
- The pilots thought that relinquishing control of their aircraft to some laughably-armed men and putting both their own lives and the lives of everyone else on board was a sane thing to do. (highly unlikely)

Now let's look at the bigger picture:

- Poorly-armed Arabs had a 100% success rate in hijacking four commercial airliners, each carrying flight crews, passengers and (at least one each) military-trained pilots, all of whom gave up their planes and control of their lives. (highly unlikely)
- Standard operating procedures for hijackings were ignored, allegedly due to incompetence which just happened to take place on that particular day, and NORAD's response was woefully slow due to the several wargames taking place at the same time as the alleged hijackings, despite the hijackings being staggered over a very long period. (highly unlikely)

Edited in:
- No Arab names on the flight manifests or autopsy reports. (impossible if the official story is true)
- No hijacking codes sent by any of the flight crews. [except UA 93, however I can't find anything to substantiate the claim that this flight did send one] (highly unlikely)

There are other anomalies as well.

Now, tell me, which scenario is the most plausible again?

Flyingfish

cockmynut wrote:

Now let's look at the bigger picture:

- Poorly-armed Arabs had a 100% success rate in hijacking four commercial airliners, each carrying flight crews, passengers and (at least one each) military-trained pilots, all of whom gave up their planes and control of their lives. (highly unlikely)
- Standard operating procedures for hijackings were ignored, allegedly due to incompetence which just happened to take place on that particular day, and NORAD's response was woefully slow due to the several wargames taking place at the same time as the alleged hijackings, despite the hijackings being staggered over a very long period. (highly unlikely)

Now, tell me, which scenario is the most plausible again?

Add to that list that the hijackers names NEVER appeared on any of the 4 flight manifests. So basically all 19 boarded without tickets?

Diogenes

cockmynut wrote:

All three hypotheses have their flaws. Scenario two is highly unlikely. I believe the call could very easily have been faked by someone, however not by computer.

You understand how absurd that is? Sound forensic anaylsis would destroy this. There is software already that is voice recognisation.

But let's analyse hypothesis C, which you obviously favour. To accept this theory, you have to simultaneously accept some very dubious "facts" which, if taken individually, could be seen as quite plausible, however when taken together, stretch even the limits of the imagination:

- Four Arabs managed to get box cutters past airport security (likely, in 2001)
- Four Arabs managed to hijack a Boeing airliner. (plausible)

- Flight crews, passengers and the pilots together offered no resistance. (plausible, but highly unlikely)

Factually inaccurate. Passengers were murdered according to audio reports including Betty Ong "there's a man dead in business class" We must assume that there was either resistance, or that the terrorists murdered someone to "set an example" After watching the first attempt at resistance being met with brutal violence, or being given a demostration of what would happen if someone resisted by making an example of one or two passengers, they could easily intimidate the rest of the passengers.

- John Ogonowski (captain) was a US Air Force fighter pilot in Vietnam and Tom McGuinness (co-pilot) flew F-14 fighters for the US Navy. Both men were allegedly incapacitated. (unlikely)

Two points

It was standard operating procedure for pilots to agree to any hijackers demands in the hope of a peaceful negotiated solution. Most pilot hijacking manuals worked off the the 70s/80s assumpt that the terrorists would take the plane to a location and make demands.

Simply put these men were trained rational experience combat veterans, if they resisted, they ran the risk of killing/incapacitying themselves, and therefore endangering the lives of all passengers, ergo a pilots priority is to keep themselves alive, and the passengers alive, and therefore agree to terrorist demands.

- The pilots thought that relinquishing control of their aircraft to some laughably-armed men and putting both their own lives and the lives of everyone else on board was a sane thing to do. (highly unlikely)

These laughably armed terrorists have already killed on the plane. Also please prove, using more than a politcians quote that they just had box cutters, several passengers were reported to say "knives" the boxcutter claims run similar to a "missile hitting it" by Rumsfield, there's no specific way of knowing what exact weapons the terrorists had

Now let's look at the bigger picture:

- Poorly-armed Arabs had a 100% success rate in hijacking four commercial airliners, each carrying flight crews, passengers and (at least one each) military-trained pilots, all of whom gave up their planes and control of their lives. (highly unlikely)

Sorry stop;

- We don't know exactly what weapons they had.

- This aren't successive, they are concurrent. Meaning if four groups of terrorists pulled this off on four seperate occassions, and on each occasion the USG didn't prevent it that'd be damning evidence of a failure. This is four groups of terrorists using the same tactics on the same day, so it's not getting lucky on four seperate occasions, its using the one tactic four times on one day.

- Crews were trained to submit to terrorists in order to save lives

- Passengers could have been cowed by murders to prove the intent of terrorists or early attempts at resistance were met with brutal a brutal and murderous reaction.

-United 93. There wasn't a 100% success rate. For the first three hijackings the passengers and crew obeyed the terrorists, on Unitied 93 as evidence grew that they were in danger the passengers developed a plan and attacked. Your claim that all the passengers on all the flights "gave up their lifes" passively, ignores the heroism of the passengers of 93, and exposes your willingness to ignore evidence that contradicts your version of events.
[/quote]

- Standard operating procedures for hijackings were ignored, allegedly due to incompetence which just happened to take place on that particular day, and NORAD's response was woefully slow due to the several wargames taking place at the same time as the alleged hijackings, despite the hijackings being staggered over a very long period. (highly unlikely)

Now, tell me, which scenario is the most plausible again?

Um hum

Please give me examples of the multipile war games

Please offer evidence that norards reaction time was hampered.

Please offer evidence that NORAD could even have scrambled jets in time, like examples of previous scrambles.

(before you do so and to save me the hassle of doing this all over again please read this thread from the start. )

So Cockmynuts, Yes I still believe the story.Furthermore your response is a non sequitur. Orcale questioned the tone of her reaction you focused on how dubious the hijacking was. Can I remind you. 1. The Hijackers were armed with some form of knives. They killed. Either those who tried to oppose them, or to make examples to imtimidate. Pilots were trained to agree with hijackers. 2. The question we were posed was whether Betty's Ong's voice is plausible. You've ignored this. Why?

Can I ask which one of the three hypotheticals do you believe is most plausible? And why?

PS. Still need to look at your other two links, I shall starting a new job monday will get to it soon.

Oracle

There's a few things that don't add up about that tape. Let's say the plane is being hijacked there's a couple of people stabbed and one of the hijackers put a Mace-like gas around the cabin, causing everyone difficulty in breathing and seeing. So lets say, unlikely as it seems, there's no passenger panic yet, and Betty Ong finds a quite place to make a call to the airline reservations line. She's retained her composure and remains calm. What's the first thing she would say when the phone was answered at the other end? Remember she's calm and in control.

I'm not sure about anyone else but if I was in Betty's situation the first thing I'd say is identify myself, state who I was, the flight number and destination. Something like "Hello I'm Betty Ong, I'm a flight attendant on Flight 11 travelling from Boston to LA. There's an emergency situation on board." I'd probably say where in the plane the attackers where; she did do that. I might then describe where I am in the cabin in relation to the hijackers. In a hijack situation your call could be ended suddenly if you're discovered by an attacker, so it's imperative to get vital information out as quickly as possible. That surely must be covered in the training for such an eventuality. Instead they have to ask Betty her name, who she is, the flight number, and they ask her 4 times what seat number she's in.
I also find it remarkable that she makes no reference to the condition of the passengers, a flight attendant's primary responsibility. She says nothing about the state of the passengers on board; she's doesn't say if they're panicked or relaxed or unaware of the situation.

Flyingfish

Again great detail and a lot of solid logic being used to argue each side. But I can't help thinking that we might be ignoring the bigger picture here?

Below is an excellent analysis of the current situation in the US
http://www.alternet.org/stories/45340/?comments=view&cID=388016&pID=387783

cockmynut

Diogenes wrote:

You understand how absurd that is? Sound forensic anaylsis would destroy this. There is software already that is voice recognisation.

Has there been forensic analysis performed on this phone call? If so, link please.

Diogenes wrote:

Factually inaccurate. Passengers were murdered according to audio reports including Betty Ong "there's a man dead in business class" We must assume that there was either resistance, or that the terrorists murdered someone to "set an example" After watching the first attempt at resistance being met with brutal violence, or being given a demostration of what would happen if someone resisted by making an example of one or two passengers, they could easily intimidate the rest of the passengers.

Do you believe that Vietnam veterans are easily intimidated? The men could have easily been overpowered by everyone on those planes, but they were not.

Diogenes wrote:

It was standard operating procedure for pilots to agree to any hijackers demands in the hope of a peaceful negotiated solution. Most pilot hijacking manuals worked off the the 70s/80s assumpt that the terrorists would take the plane to a location and make demands.

Simply put these men were trained rational experience combat veterans, if they resisted, they ran the risk of killing/incapacitying themselves, and therefore endangering the lives of all passengers, ergo a pilots priority is to keep themselves alive, and the passengers alive, and therefore agree to terrorist demands.

That's an absolutely ludicrous claim. How can their priority be to keep themselves and their passengers safe by simply handing over the plane to strange men who turned out to be flight school failures?

Diogenes wrote:

These laughably armed terrorists have already killed on the plane. Also please prove, using more than a politcians quote that they just had box cutters, several passengers were reported to say "knives" the boxcutter claims run similar to a "missile hitting it" by Rumsfield, there's no specific way of knowing what exact weapons the terrorists had

The official story maintains knives and/or box-cutters (aka Stanley knives). This is the theory I am attacking. If the story said they were armed with guns, the hijack scenario would be more plausible.

Diogenes wrote:

- We don't know exactly what weapons they had.

You are right, but the official theory maintains that they were armed with knives/box-cutters, and I am attacking the notion of the hijackings taking place given this element of the official theory.

Diogenes wrote:

- This aren't successive, they are concurrent. Meaning if four groups of terrorists pulled this off on four seperate occassions, and on each occasion the USG didn't prevent it that'd be damning evidence of a failure. This is four groups of terrorists using the same tactics on the same day, so it's not getting lucky on four seperate occasions, its using the one tactic four times on one day.

The fact that they got lucky four times in the one day works against the official story as opposed to with it. The probability of failure is astronomically high. It is more conceivable that someone would win four cars in their lifetime than four cars on the same day. Not a perfect analogy but the element of alleged pure luck is the same.

Diogenes wrote:

- Crews were trained to submit to terrorists in order to save lives

Were they trained to just hand over control of their aircraft? "Oh, you stabbed one person, so we'll just give you control of the stick so you can send us all to our deaths if you feel the need."

Diogenes wrote:

- Passengers could have been cowed by murders to prove the intent of terrorists or early attempts at resistance were met with brutal a brutal and murderous reaction.

What sort of ludicrous logic is used to conclude that a reasonably occupied plane could not overpower four/five men armed with knives? Perhaps the "terrorists" could have succeeded because armed pilots were banned two months prior to 9/11.

Diogenes wrote:

-United 93. There wasn't a 100% success rate. For the first three hijackings the passengers and crew obeyed the terrorists, on Unitied 93 as evidence grew that they were in danger the passengers developed a plan and attacked. Your claim that all the passengers on all the flights "gave up their lifes" passively, ignores the heroism of the passengers of 93, and exposes your willingness to ignore evidence that contradicts your version of events.

Yes, this story is highly dubious as there is mounting evidence that flight 93 was, in actuality, shot down. There was a 100% success rate of wrestling control of the planes from every other person on board.

I do not offer any explanation for the black box recordings which have not been made public. However, to humour you for a moment, it is inconceivable that 1) there is only one real fight against the "bloodthirsty terrorists who hate our freedoms" out of four potential ones and 2) this one fails spectacularly by making the plane plunge straight into the ground.

Standing up to a few men with knives who want to take over a plane is not heroism in my view, it is common sense.

And sorry, but I'm not the one who is ignoring evidence which contradicts my version of events. I do not have any pre-determined version of events - I change my mind as verifiable evidence presents itself. There is the evidence of phone calls and black box recordings but these are not public. They do support the official story yet at the same time other evidence contradicts this.

You, however, seem to have your mind set on believing the official story and repeating the word "terrorists" over and over, yet another silly word whose definition is constantly re-moulded by the Americans to invent fairy-tale nemeses. If you can prove the official story I'll believe it, but until that day comes, no thanks.

Diogenes wrote:

Please give me examples of the multipile war games

Please offer evidence that norards reaction time was hampered.

Please offer evidence that NORAD could even have scrambled jets in time, like examples of previous scrambles.

War games.

An analysis of NORAD's apparent failure.

Diogenes wrote:

(before you do so and to save me the hassle of doing this all over again please read this thread from the start. )

I'm not reading through forty-four pages. If you've seen something before, please point me to your refutation earlier in the thread.

Diogenes wrote:

So Cockmynuts, Yes I still believe the story.Furthermore your response is a non sequitur. Orcale questioned the tone of her reaction you focused on how dubious the hijacking was. Can I remind you. 1. The Hijackers were armed with some form of knives. They killed. Either those who tried to oppose them, or to make examples to imtimidate. Pilots were trained to agree with hijackers. 2. The question we were posed was whether Betty's Ong's voice is plausible. You've ignored this. Why?

1) Please provide reference which states that pilots were ordered to relinquish control of their aircraft to any lunatics who wave knives around when the opportunity to incapacitate said lunatics is there.
2) Because it wasn't an issue I felt the need to address. You posed that question to someone else, not me.

Diogenes wrote:

Can I ask which one of the three hypotheticals do you believe is most plausible? And why?

I do not believe any of the three are terribly plausible. The second scenario, which envisions Ong as a government agent or shill, has no evidence to back it up. The third scenario involves believing a never-ending stream of coincidences, contradictions and absurdities. However, the first scenario is also implausible, just not as much as the other two. By way of elimination, I would pick the first one, however I don't really buy into that either. What I'm really interested in is pointing out the absurd nature of the official conspiracy theory.

bonkey

Oracle wrote:

I'm really surprised by how calm she sounds, her voice shows very little emotion, and no stress. There's not much discernible commotion in the background either which seems strange. I would have imagined with a couple of people stabbed on board there would be widespread passenger panic

How many tapes from similar situations have you reviewed to form an opinion on this subject?

I mean actual recordings of people from known, identified, undisputable hijackings, in case there's any question.

I'm just curious as to what basis you have for judging this to be not only an atypical reaction, but one which is atypical enough to suggest that it could not have happened.

Have you also considered the delayed-impact which shock-reactions can have? If so, can you also clarify your expertise on this particular subject which allows you to discount it as a possibility?

bonkey

Flyingfish wrote:

In the interest of keeping this thread moving. Please review the following video in the meantime.

Kevin Ryan ---http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032&q=kevin+ryan---

I can't speak for any other skeptic here, but my response is simple.

No. I won't review the video. I have no interest in spending time and energy in reviewing the content and then responding to all of it (as to do less would leave it open to "but you never addressed X" followups) in my own words having done my own research if all you're doing is posting a link to someone else's work.

If you'd like to discuss specific points from that video, make the argument in your own words, supply references (point-in-time) to where the tape makes the argument, and ideally show how you've corroborated the claims yourself, then I'll be more than happy to respond.

If you're not willing to do this, then to be frank I consider it somewhat unreasonable to suggest that I (or any other skeptic here) should be willing to put an equivalent amount of effort into a response.