9/11 - Not proud, but I'm becoming convinced

banquo

I'm the same, I only believe the demolition theory.

RE the pentagon, there seems to be a ton of eyewitnesses who confirm the official story.
RE Silverstein, I read up on it and he wasn't taking out a new insurance policy, it was just time to renew the existing one.
RE Flight 93, I haven't had time to check this out properly so I can't really say one way or the other. I probably won't bother as the CT seems to rely mostly on circumstantial evidence at best.

And RE the demolitions. Paul Daniel sure does look like he's making real magic happen because I know nothing about magic tricks. However, another experienced magician could say "I know exactly how that trick works" because he's done it before. The WTC's really do look like demolitions, and there are a bunch of architects, structural engineers and demolition engineers saying that these could not just be, but could only be controlled demolitions. And a demolition company in Sweden said that although 9/10 times it's much easier from the bottom, sometimes they demolish from the top down.

I don't give a damn what the Prof of Philosophy of Palookaville Uni says.

We can never be 100% sure of political motive, etc. Let's put that to one side for the moment. Structured argument is the order of the day.

My only question is this:

Can a 1,368ft, narrow building collapse-

-into the path of most resistance [straight through itself]
-while apparantly meeting no resistance [at freefall speed]
-totally symmetrically, despite its dimensions

3 times on 1 day, despite two different designs of building. And if it can, why do 175 qualified experts insist that it cannot?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

because they're wrong?

what about the other thousands of experts who insist that your experts are wrong?

banquo

Mordeth wrote:

because they're wrong?

what about the other thousands of experts who insist that your experts are wrong?

See, this is exactly the problem. Why are they wrong?

Hyperbole! Find for me 1,000 experts who say that 'my' experts are wrong.

meglome

I watched the towers collapse live on TV at the time and it was pretty incredible. I'd never and still haven't seen anything quite like it (the actual collapses). But I'll give you the two main reasons why I believe there wasn't explosives involved:
1. There is just absolutely no way you could place explosives all over those buildings without someone noticing then telling. I've seen buildings being prepared for explosive demolition and it can take weeks to set up, with a fair number of workers. The thousands of people who worked in those buildings and no one saw anything or said anything... come on please give me a break. The probability of that happening is miniscule, next to impossible I’d say.
2. I saw the engineer who actually worked on the buildings explain how they collapsed using the actual plans. He was very happy to dismiss any other theory other than the official one. Why would he want to lie, it presumably looks somewhat bad for him if the buildings collapse after a plane hit so if anything he'd be better off supporting the conspiracy.

For me it's all about probability. The conspiracy theories are interesting an all but the probability of the US government actually being able to carry it off, with the number of people who would have to be involved and no one whatsoever speaking out... impossible. At worst they covered up their own stupidity.

macshadow

I've seen buildings being prepared for explosive demolition and it can take weeks to set up, with a fair number of workers.
You must be very confused about tower number seven then?

meglome

macshadow wrote:

You must be very confused about tower number seven then?

The main problem with this building is that most of the video doesn’t show it burning as it’s covered by the towers or taken from behind it. But I saw fire fighters being interviewed about it, in which they stated the building was ablaze at the bottom from burning debris off the towers. I wonder in how many situations would a building be left to burn as this one basically was, so how can we compare it. Once it burned enough so that the temperature could get high enough it would have collapsed in the same way as the towers. The plates holding the floor up would have given way as the original engineer stated in his explanation for the collapse.

You also didn't address any other point I made.

macshadow

Jeeeezzzzzz,tower 7 was brought down in a controlled explosion.
Larry silverstein has admitted this!. now how hard would it be to prepare the building for demolition while it's on fire?

www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

Also the fires had nothing to do with burning debris from the main towers.I am not a 100% on this but i thought they didn't know the cause of the fires.

meglome

macshadow wrote:

Jeeeezzzzzz,tower 7 was brought down in a controlled explosion.
Larry silverstein has admitted this!. now how hard would it be to prepare the building for demolition while it's on fire?

www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

So let me understand this.

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

The BOTTOM floors of the building were on fire, a very big fire. Why would anyone in their right mind try and place explosives in a building like this when they are saying it's going to collapse anyway. The phase 'Pull it' could as easily mean just get outta there and leave it to it's own devices, which is what I thought it meant. Why do you choose to believe it means place explosives? So there is obviously testimony out there from the insane explosives people who brought it down saying how they did it? Can you direct me to it?

Nick_oliveri

The larry arguement is a tired one and will not strenghten an arguement. You are (probably) taking something out of context. It could be taken as anything really. Like i could suggest he went into the John and pulled one off due to the pressure he was under....see, i win!!

bonkey

Its not just the "pull" argument which is tired. All of the arguments here are tired ones.

That the OP actually thinks they're somehow unanswered or unanswerable only shows that he/she hasn't looked into both sides, favouring instead to stick to one side's version of events.....which is ironic really.

whiterebel

Just a few points to make on this.

A lot of the Theorists are trying to hard to tie it up in a nice neat bundle, including Loose Change makers and Michael Moore. People who point out the difficulty of trying to keep hundreds of people silent are correct, IMO
BUT, if a select few knew, and organised defence excercises away from the targets, the number of people involved would be very, very small, and all like-minded, trusted individuals.

With regard to the time frame needed and accessibility to the Towers, nobody has mentioned here yet that George Bush's brother was the head of the company that provided security to the Towers and Dulles Airport.
The Towers were closed every night for the two weeks prior to 9/11.

The real lunatic theory sites bear the stamp of CIA operations to purposely spread misinformation, enabling them to tar everyone with the same brush.
They have been caught red-handed doing this only recently.

Who made the $100M on Boeing, United and American having a bad news week?

Did Larry Silverstein not buy the Towers and re-insure them only weeks beforehand, including a proviso for loss of rent due to terrorist incident?
The settlement figure he made doesn't include the money he got for WTC7, which I believe was another $450M. Also the rumours about the WTC struggling for tenants due to astronomical rents and a massive bill coming for Asbestos removal? Also, WTC7 was a modern builing, and there was certainly no fire on the scale of the Madrid Hotel fire. Why did the Post Office and Verizon building on either side not suffer similar damage? One of the 'debunkers' said there was no water and they couldn't fight the fire, while on his website had a picture showing an FDNY member with a hose full on one of the fires.

With regard to the flames down the elevator shaft. I watched the Naudet brothers 9/11 film again recently. If you look when they are in the reception area, there is no sign of fire damage or smoke, just windows blown out, presumably due to the impact.

Why won't they show the footage from the Petrol station of the Sheraton of the plane hitting the Pentagon? It would surely shut most theories down straight away.

Its as easy from some people to believe some of the Theories as it is for others to believe that it it took so long to scramble jets, that the country with a defence spend of $400billion couldn't defend the Pentagon, that despite warnings from other Governments and his own staff, they couldn't prevent it happening.

No need to flame me, just some observations. I'd prefer to believe it happened as the Govt say, as the alternative is too terrible to contemplate.


Edited: Didn't see the 54 page thread about this further down the forum. Will be backin 3 months after I've read it

humanji

Why should the goverment bother trying to prove conspiracy theories wrong? Very few "truthers" are ever going to admit they might be wrong. They'll just find new evidence that supports their newest theories. If the government starts trying to prove them wrong, it'll jsut waste time and energy and would just make the "truthers" believe that it's a cover up. The best thing to do is just ignore them.

bonkey

whiterebel wrote:

BUT, if a select few knew, and organised defence excercises away from the targets, the number of people involved would be very, very small, and all like-minded, trusted individuals.

If you accept that the towers fell because of aircraft crashing into them and the subsequent fires, that WTC7 collapsed from damage inflicted by the falling towers and subsequent raging fires, that the NIST report is an honest accounting, etc. then yes...the numbers of people required to be involved drop dramatically. If, as you go on to suggest, people like Silverstein were somehow involved, the numbers start going up. Start including demolition, and the numbers start skyrocketing.

With regard to the time frame needed and accessibility to the Towers, nobody has mentioned here yet that George Bush's brother was the head of the company that provided security to the Towers and Dulles Airport.

Perhaps no-one has mentioned it because its not entirely accurate. Marvin Bush was on the board (as opposed to being "the head") of one of the companies until some time in 2000. The towers didn't fall in 2000. He had nothing to do with WTC security in September 2001.

The Towers were closed every night for the two weeks prior to 9/11.

I think you may be taking Scott Forbes' already-suspicious account and mis-stating it.

No, the towers were not closed every night for two weeks.

The real lunatic theory sites bear the stamp of CIA operations to purposely spread misinformation, enabling them to tar everyone with the same brush.
They have been caught red-handed doing this only recently.

Evidence? The only thing I'm aware the CIA have been found editing recently is Wikipedia, and the edits they've done are a matter of public record, so you can prove to us that they're spreading misinformation and lunacy if thats what you're referring to.

Who made the $100M on Boeing, United and American having a bad news week?

Firstly, no-one made $100M. The trades weren't worth anywhere near that.

Secondly, this investigation was carried out anyway.

Amongst its findings was that 95% of the puts on UAL bought on Sep 6th were by a single investor who also bought 115,000 shares of American on September 10th.

Did Larry Silverstein not buy the Towers and re-insure them only weeks beforehand, including a proviso for loss of rent due to terrorist incident?

He bought the lease, not the towers.

He also negotiated the recommended anti-terrorism insurance cover downwards from the value recommended by the insurance companies. Consider that the recommended value would have covered all his rebuilding costs whereas his downwards-negotiated value didn't...but he still chose to rebuild, ending up out of pocket.

The settlement figure he made doesn't include the money he got for WTC7, which I believe was another $450M.

Lets not also forget the cost of rebuilding WTC7 - which Silverstein paid for. $700M. By including WTC7, you only make his losses bigger.

Also the rumours about the WTC struggling for tenants due to astronomical rents and a massive bill coming for Asbestos removal?

If it was strggling for tenants, why did Silverstein just put himself out of pocket putting up new office blocks where the old ones use to be?

Also, WTC was effectively fully occupied on September 11 2001.

Furthermore the "rumours" about an asbestos bill for WTC are false. WTC7 didn't have any asbestos. 38 stories (out of 110) of one tower (WTC1) did at one point. Roughly 50% of this had already been removed by Sep 2001, and the remainder was not required to be removed.

There was no massive asbestos bill. Whether or not there were rumours of one don't matter.

Also, WTC7 was a modern builing, and there was certainly no fire on the scale of the Madrid Hotel fire.

The fire was massive, ranging over almost all floors.

The Madrid hotel did not suffer structural damage from a near-by collapsing taller building.

Nice to see you mention the Madrid case as a non-suspicious fire though. It should mean that you accept that fire alone can cause a steel structure to fail completely.

Why did the Post Office and Verizon building on either side not suffer similar damage?

They too did not suffer the same structural damage that WTC7 did.

Why won't they show the footage from the Petrol station of the Sheraton of the plane hitting the Pentagon? It would surely shut most theories down straight away.

The petrol station footage has been released. It showed what it was claimed to show - nothing useful. Logically, you don't point security cameras at the sky. You have them on vantage points looking downwards.

Its as easy from some people to believe some of the Theories as it is for others to believe that it it took so long to scramble jets,

It didn't take so long to scramble jets. It was actually done very quickly going by the protocols and established timeframes. In fact, if protocol had been properly followed, it would have taken longer.

Can you be specific about the delay you talk about? Usually this point arises from people not having a clear picture of the timeline, so I'd like to make sure.

that the country with a defence spend of $400billion couldn't defend the Pentagon,

Its defence was outwards-looking. This was a known fact which the terrorists took advantage of.

that despite warnings from other Governments and his own staff, they couldn't prevent it happening.

The US government were lax, yes. However, you overplay the detail of the information they were given as well as what you would expect them to do with it.

Take the information you believe they had. Put yourself in their shoes at the time they received it. Without referncing a single future date, explain what the right thing to do with this data would have been, considering that you're working with a timespan that could spread from days to decades.

No need to flame me, just some observations.

I'm not flaming you. I'm just pointing out that your observations are not painting an entirely accurate picture. And to be honest, none of them are new.

I'd prefer to believe it happened as the Govt say, as the alternative is too terrible to contemplate.

What do you mean "the alternative"? Why is there this false notion of a dichotomy - that if it wasn't how the government said, then it was the government who did it?

There are other options, you know.

bonkey

humanji wrote:

The best thing to do is just ignore them.

Which is where the smart ones then agitate along the lines of "why will no-one let our voice be heard. Its a conspiracy to silence us."

boards.ie is an interesting microcosm of this.

To explain...

Some previously-regular denizens of this forum tried posting to AH, Politics, Science and assorted other fora at various times. They explained that what they felt what they had to say this time was important enough that it wasn't "just" a CT any more, or that it deserved a wider audience, or that it deserved to be taken seriously, o rwhatever.

Generally, they weren't listened to (with the exception of recent times on AH), and their threads moved here or locked.

They complained amongst themselves. Why will no-one listen to us. Why won't they take us seriously. We're not cranks.

After witnessing this happening a couple of times, I decided to join the ranks of those who were willing to listen to them and take them seriously.

So I took them seriously. I did my research. I critically analyzed their arguments, pointed out the flaws in reasoning, and so forth.

Did I get welcomed to the board as a skeptic? No, rather I was repeatedly asked why I was there if I didn't believe.

Did I get thanked for taking them seriously? No, I got accused of trying to silence them.

Was my point of view respected? Sometimes. More often, I was told that I should stop believing what I'm fed by the mainstream media and so forth.

It got to the point where because I did them the courtesy of taking them seriously and because the mods allowed me to do this, there were threads started about how the mods were trying to silence debate, threads asking if I was a disinformation agent, and so on.

Ignore them, and they play the victim. Don't ignore them and they play the victim. They have it sown up.

I'd ignore them, except that occasionally I have the hope that my ramblings on this forum have helped some lurker to not believe what is being fed to them by the Conspiracy Theory Industry, but rather to hear both perspectives.

And don't forget that foks. At the back of all of these Conspiracy Theories are people who make a living out of selling CT material - whether it be books, DVDs, speaking tours. Trace the origins of every single CT regarding 911 whether it be controleld demolition, remoet-controlled planes, no-planes-at-the-pentagon, mini-nukes, space-platform-beam-weapons. Trace it back to the first mention and guess what you'll find? It came from someone who was or is making a living out of selling Conspiracy Theory material.

Someone earlier suggested to "follow the money" if you want an explanation.

Do that. Follow the money. Ask yourself how trustworthy Alex Jones is when he makes a living out of cashing in on Consrpiacy Theories. Dylan Avery went on record saying he and his colleagues have made more from LC then they would have otherwise. Thierry Meyssan - 300,000 copies sold - I doubt he's running a loss. David Ray Griffin - 5 books published, touring the world speaking on the subject - again, safe to say he's not out of pocket.

Some of them are no doubt in it for fame rather than fortune, but at the end of the day, why do "believers" never seem to consider that if there's a money-trail to be followed, they'd do well to look at the peddlers of tales they put their faith in.

humanji

bonkey wrote:

Ignore them, and they play the victim. Don't ignore them and they play the victim. They have it sown up.

Ah ha! Then I know what to do. Everyone agree with them that it's a conspiracy. Even get the US government to admit that it's all true. If we do this for every conspiracy theory, then the truthers will have to abandon them (since they'll no longer be conspiracies). It'll take them a little while to come up with new conspiracies and we can have a breather in the mean time.

We can only hope

oscarBravo

I'm going to go out on a limb with a prediction here: after bonkey's thorough point-by-point rebuttal in post 44, not one of the Believers will either (a) provide convincing evidence to effectively contradict any of his points, or (b) say "oh look, I was wrong - silly me".

whiterebel

Haven't that much time to go back through it all now, as I'm off home,
but as far as I remember, Marvin was Chairman of the Board until June 2000. No-one could verify the arrangement after that date because the company was de-listed. Securacom/Stratasec still had the contract up until 9/11 as far as I am aware. He became involved in one of the companies that provided insurance for WTC among others. Sorry no time-lines, memory ain't what it was.
Not trying to prove he laced the place with thermite or anything, but the coincidences are remarkable.

The Madrid fire burned for over 32 hours and still didn't fall, so I fail to see your point there.

Reports vary as to how much Silverstein himself put into buying the leases. However if he got the insurance paid for loss of revenue, which is in itself unusual, how did he lose money? Rebuilt WTC 7 quicker than most around have been repaired, and back in business again pretty quickly.Just read the rebuild cost is $1Bn, total costs for the end product vary. Claim for the WTC was actually $861M according to some sources, I showed a low figure.
Silverstein is under contract to provide space again according to the lease I believe. There also seems to be a big row brewing about the amount of asbestos in the air that day and the effect on health

Is it the Petrol station footage the 4 frames that they released? I wasn't aware that any other footage apart from the one Pentagon camera had been released. If there are 7/8 cameras in the vicinity one would surely show what happened, especially on the freeway cameras, which would have a good range.

I'll have a look for the story again about the CIA putting up misinformative websites.

Anyway have to go home. Will look through it again tomorrow.

whiterebel

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm going to go out on a limb with a prediction here: after bonkey's thorough point-by-point rebuttal in post 44, not one of the Believers will either (a) provide convincing evidence to effectively contradict any of his points, or (b) say "oh look, I was wrong - silly me".

Probably as likely as one of the official story line believers saying similar.::D

oscarBravo

Trust me, as soon as someone points out a factual inaccuracy in something I've posted - with credible documentary evidence that convincingly demonstrates same - I'll admit that I was wrong.

bonkey

whiterebel wrote:

The Madrid fire burned for over 32 hours and still didn't fall, so I fail to see your point there.

Let me make it clearer.

Madrid fire : structure was not pre-damaged, started at a single location, was fought constantly, , structure was not unique with multiple "single point of failure" supports. End result: the part of the structure that relied only on steel-support failed totally, leaving the concrete-supported part.

(I stress steel-supported - second time now - for a reason. Bonus NWO-membership superpoints for anyone who can figure out why why!)

WTC7 : structure significantly pre-damaged by falling debris from a building over 50 stories taller than it. This damage initiated multiple fires. Was not fought constantly, but rather abandoned to the fire. End result: probable failure at one of the known "single point of failure" supports, directly below the East Penthouse, definite total collapse.

Reports vary as to how much Silverstein himself put into buying the leases. However if he got the insurance paid for loss of revenue, which is in itself unusual, how did he lose money?

Lets say he bought WTC7 for free. Lets say he had total cover for his loss of revenue. Neither of these are true, but they work against my argument and I'm still happy to assume they are to begin with.

So...he owns a more-or-less-fully-tenanted WTC7 with no debt and only running costs (which rent is obviously covering with surplus).
It falls down.
He gets $450m in insurance, which we will assume doesn't include the total cover for loss of revenue that I'm imagining he had (but which he didn't).
He spends $700m rebuilding a new office-block, which at the time of completion did not have a single tenant confirmed.

So, he's $250 million out of pocket and has what he started out with - a multi-storey office block in the World Trade Center.

Now, lets remove my fictional "bought it for free" and "had loss of income covered". Lets also factor back in that while Silverstein owned WTC7, he was paying the Port Authority for the ground lease which he has to continue to pay even when there's no building generating rent because thats how a ground lease works.

I grant you - the new WTC7 is bigger then the old one, so someone could argue Silverstein did all this to upsize, but I've never seen that argument made and to be honest, given the lack of takeup for the new WTC7 to date (which is putting Silverstein more and more out of pocket) you'd need some fairly serious math to explain how being hundreds of millions down on WTC7 alone was a devious "get rich" plan.

WTC1 and 2...the story is the same. He's out of pocket bigtime. Even if the joint lawsuit he and the Port Authority have taken for $1bn regarding insurance payouts was to pay off, he's still out of pocket, but it would be enough to make his (re)investment in WTC sound as opposed to risky...assuming he got most or all of it.

Rebuilt WTC 7 quicker than most around have been repaired, and back in business again pretty quickly.

Just lacking tenants.

Just read the rebuild cost is $1Bn, total costs for the end product vary. Claim for the WTC was actually $861M according to some sources, I showed a low figure.

Oh dear, so did I. I took a figure of $700m above. Better make that loss of $250m up to aloss of $411m if your lower figure was right, or $550m if the $1bn is correct.

Silverstein is under contract to provide space again according to the lease I believe.

Well, yes. That's pretty much my point.

He could have gone in breach of contract, but in that case, the Port Authority would have taken the insurance money off him (if not more) in order to finance the rebuilding themselves.

So...either which way, the insurance claim was never going to make him rich. It was to cover the rebuilding costs (at best). If he had made a profit on the insurance payout, you can be damn sure the insurance companies would get their money back afterwards.

(For the record, the insurance companies funded a private, independant investigation into the causes of the collapse - something you don't hear "truthers" mention too often. More bonus NWO-member superpoints for anyone who can guess what this investigation found).

There also seems to be a big row brewing about the amount of asbestos in the air that day and the effect on health

Is there? I know there's questions being asked about the problems which people suffered because of the air that day (and how its being ignored in genral by many in authority), but I wasn't aware that it was linked exclusively to asbestos.

I know that stuff like burning plastic gives off highly toxic fumes. I know that the particulate matter from the collapse ranged in sizes right down to the dangerously small (comparable in size to asbestos fibres). So I'm surprised that asbestos is being solely blamed....but I haven't seen anything either which way, so I'd appreciate links.

Is it the Petrol station footage the 4 frames that they released?

No, its the petrol station who's entire footage they released. Google for "911 gas station video".

whiterebel

oscarBravo wrote:

Trust me, as soon as someone points out a factual inaccuracy in something I've posted - with credible documentary evidence that convincingly demonstrates same - I'll admit that I was wrong.

Same here, problem is there seems to be as much "proof" for one side as the other, and never the twain shall meet.

whiterebel

Rebuild for the NEW WTC building (replace 1&2) estimated at $1B.
Claim paid out for WTC 7 alone $861M (I'll get confirmation on that figure), which according to your figures puts him in profit, especially if he gets away with $3B for the new building (1$B rebuild + fitting out I suppose) or am I missing something here, for NOW points?
He insured against loss of income as well, FYI, unheard of within the industry apparently, so while not profit it covered his losses waiting to rebuild. Problem is, theres so much "information" and counter info out there, anyone can use it to there own ends.

Petrol station footage is disappointing from both points of view, especially as there was such a song and dance over it. I believe one of the hotel ones is to be released next month as well, but the FBI are supposedly disputing there even is one from the Sheraton.

oscarBravo

whiterebel wrote:

Same here, problem is there seems to be as much "proof" for one side as the other, and never the twain shall meet.

That's why I'd distinguish between "proof" and proof.

Ciaran500

whiterebel wrote:

He insured against loss of income as well, FYI, unheard of within the industry apparently, so while not profit it covered his losses waiting to rebuild.

CTs always come up with bits like this, easy to claim and very hard to prove or disprove. Its like the claim that pull it is a common demolition term untill someone actually went and asked some demolition firms.

Jocksereire

Mordeth wrote:

... not a few crazy conspiracy nuts.

.

so you believe the conspiracy of 19 hijackers hijacking 4 airliners with box cutters and evading the US airforce under the guidance of some guy in a cave.....yeeeahh good man.......lol who is the "crazy conspiracy NUT" now i wonder:D

Jocksereire

bonkey wrote:

Its not just the "pull" argument which is tired. All of the arguments here are tired ones.

.

dont we just know it!! know matter how much you tell them what pull means theyll point at something else :rolleyes: here we go again zzzz

Jocksereire

oscarBravo wrote:

Trust me, as soon as someone points out a factual inaccuracy in something I've posted - with credible documentary evidence that convincingly demonstrates same - I'll admit that I was wrong.

lol jaysus ive read it all now.......

Jocksereire

Lads i wouldnt pay too much attention to the people who believe the official conspiracy theory. the funny thing is they call every one else a conspiracy nut without realising that the story that they sadly believe is infact a conspiracy theory itself.....oh the irony

Ciaran500

Jocksereire, the J C of the 911 world?

meglome

Jocksereire wrote:

so you believe the conspiracy of 19 hijackers hijacking 4 airliners with box cutters and evading the US airforce under the guidance of some guy in a cave.....yeeeahh good man.......lol who is the "crazy conspiracy NUT" now i wonder:D

Well yes I do believe it based on a good read of credible evidence.

Jocksereire wrote:

so you believe the conspiracy of 19 hijackers hijacking 4 airliners with box cutters...

Initially no one on the planes knew what was going to happen so they sat back. Funnily enough the last plane to crash ditched into a field once the passengers realised what was going to happen. This is also the reason many Americans and others won’t believe the official line, they just can't accept that a bunch of mere Arabs with box cutters could manage to do all this damage.

Jocksereire wrote:

...evading the US airforce...

I saw a radar plot of the skies over American and Canada on 9/11. There were thousands of planes in the air at the time. So when the hijackers turned off the transponders it was extremely difficult to actually find the planes.

Jocksereire wrote:

...under the guidance of some guy in a cave.....yeeeahh good man.......lol who is the "crazy conspiracy NUT" now i wonder:D

As has been pointed out many times American air defence looked outward. There was no official contact between civilian air traffic control and the air force. As far as I remember someone had to go get out the phone book and start ringing around to get the message through to the air force. The hijackers exploited the obvious inadequacies in American air traffic control and law enforcement agencies. All that time in the cave gave them plenty of time to think this through carefully… but it could have been stopped at several points if the Americans had actually followed up, shared info or were not inept.