Jim Corr is a legend for having the courage to present a completely alternative view

Diogenes

superweld wrote: »

well it's obviously better to be safe then sorry, hence the fire proofing.

yes WTC7 had a nearby collapsing building but so did buildings immediately around the twin towers (3,4,5,6 not sure the no.'s) and there steel structures remained intact. WTC7 wasn't immediately around the towers and somehow managed to fall into it's basement like the towers. convenient eh.

And several of these building were so badly damaged they needed to be pulled down later.

The WTC7 was fully involved in fire for hours before it's collapse. It had tens of thousands of gallons of diesel stored inside the building, as well as a power substation. It was hit by massive amounts of debris from the WTC 1&2 collapse. Dozens of firefighters have gone on the record to say they knew the building was going to collapse just by looking at it.

curiousn wrote:

=> The failure to follow standard operating procedures

Such as?

=> Suppressed warnings,
=> Blocked investigations

Such as?

=> Bush reading "the Pet Goat" instead of being Commander-in-Chief
the Air Force failure to intercept hijacked jets

Oh FFS. I've already linked to the NORAD tapes already this month
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

You can actually listen to the staff of NORAD sending planes to intercept hijacked jets.

=> Flight 77 (not a missile) hit - the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector. (nice coincidence it hit the almost empty area)

Yeah I mean what are the odds? Like one in five?

=> Why the air defenses did not protect the Pentagon (which should be one of the most well defended buildings in the world), even after the towers had been hit

It's the Pentagon not GI Joe's command bunker, it didn't have magically pop up missile defense batteries. In fact seeing as it was on the approach of a major international airport it was unlikely to have any air defenses. But hey feel free, post up some evidence of SAM batteries at the pentagon pre 911 (Hint; you'll have to go back to the Cuban missile crisis)

=> Efforts by FBI management to interfere with FBI investigations into the flight schools.

Evidence?

=> Put Options that bet on the stock values of American and United airlines in the days before the attacks (betting the prices would drop).

Sigh.

911myths wrote:

"A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10...

Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10th was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades".

Despite the views expressed by the popular media, leading academics, and option market professionals, there is reason to question the decisiveness of the evidence that terrorists traded in the option market ahead of the September 11 attacks. One event that casts doubt on the evidence is the crash of an American Airlines plane in New York City on November 12. According to the OCC Web site, three trading days before, on November 7, the put-call ratio for options on AMR stock was 7.74. On the basis of the statements made about the links between option market activity and terrorism shortly after September 11, it would have been tempting to infer from this put-call ratio that terrorism probably was the cause of the November 12 crash. Subsequently, however, terrorism was all but ruled out. While it might be the case that an abnormally large AMR put-call ratio was observed by chance on November 7, this event certainly raises the question of whether put-call ratios as large as 7.74 are, in fact, unusual. Beyond the November 12 plane crash, an article published in Barron’s on October 8 (Arvedlund 2001) offers several additional grounds for being skeptical about the claims that it is likely that terrorists or their associates traded AMR and UAL options ahead of the September 11 attacks. For starters, the article notes that the heaviest trading in the AMR options did not occur in the cheapest, shortest-dated puts, which would have provided the largest profits to someone who knew of the coming attacks. Furthermore, an analyst had issued a “sell” recommendation on AMR during the previous week, which may have led investors to buy AMR puts. Similarly, the stock price of UAL had recently declined enough to concern technical traders who may have increased their put buying, and UAL options are heavily traded by institutions hedging their stock positions. Finally, traders making markets in the options did not raise the ask price at the time the orders arrived as they would have if they believed that the orders were based on adverse nonpublic information: the market makers did not appear to find the trading to be out of the ordinary at the time that it occurred.

http://www.business.uiuc.edu/poteshma/research/poteshman2006.pdf

Curiousn, and superweld, if you search this forum, you'll find that there isn't a single one of your claims that hasn't been refuted or challenged at length on this forum already.

superweld

it seems to be one of those debates where both sides have facts, expert opinions etc backing up their argument.

where both parties present evidence that seems factual (when both obviously cannot be) then i suppose it comes down to who you want to believe.

i don't know. something doesn't feel right about the whole thing anyway

Diogenes

superweld wrote: »

it seems to be one of those debates where both sides have facts, expert opinions etc backing up their argument.

Actually the opposite is true.

One side of the debate has no facts, and no experts in the relevant fields.

Consider the two high priests of the "Truth Movement" Doctor David Griffin, and Professor Steven Jones. Both have impressive titles, until you point out that the good Doctor education is as a theologian. Professor Jones, is a physicists, which true is impressive. But his area of expertise was cold fusion (extremely theoretical physics) and in fact has had only one paper ever published, and this was not on any physics matter, but rather a treatise on whether Jesus visited the Mayans. The Professor is also retired after several people and groups criticized his "research" including the civil engineering department of his own university.

Further more people like Jim Corr cannot offer a credible alternative explanation or theory as to the collapse of building 7. How were the thousands of tonnes of explosives smuggled into a building with near complete occupancy? How on earth could they muffle the sounds of supports being cut, and the noisy messy work that is required to rig a building for demolition? Rigging a building for demolition can take weeks and months, how did they avoid anyone detecting these charges? More importantly how did these charges survive intact in a building fully involved in fire for several hours.

Finally the obvious question is "why?" Why go to all this trouble to demolish a smaller ancillary building?

The truth movement cannot come up with a "why" or "how" building 7 was demolished, never mind any experts to support their position.

where both parties present evidence that seems factual (when both obviously cannot be) then i suppose it comes down to who you want to believe.

i don't know. something doesn't feel right about the whole thing anyway

I think you've just confirmed your own bias here. You want it to be suspicious so you find it suspicious

Call Me Jimmy

I shouldn't get involved really but... I read a page or two back that someone mentioned the fireman saying "pull it" as in blow up the building and there are two things wrong with this assumption.

Firstly, I remember it being addressed before and it was said that "pull it" was used in the context of the operation (the firefighting operation), and that to pull was never even related to demolition until after the 9/11 truthers came along. The common term is to "drop" a building.

Secondly, if the firefighter said "pull it" meaning blow it up, that means that this whole covert op of 9/11 was so low level that a ****ing firefighter is giving the instruction over radio to other firefighters to blow up a building. God I shouldn't have gotten into this...

superweld

Diogenes wrote: »

Actually the opposite is true.

One side of the debate has no facts, and no experts in the relevant fields.

Consider the two high priests of the "Truth Movement" Doctor David Griffin, and Professor Steven Jones. Both have impressive titles, until you point out that the good Doctor education is as a theologian. Professor Jones, is a physicists, which true is impressive. But his area of expertise was cold fusion (extremely theoretical physics) and in fact has had only one paper ever published, and this was not on any physics matter, but rather a treatise on whether Jesus visited the Mayans. The Professor is also retired after several people and groups criticized his "research" including the civil engineering department of his own university.

Further more people like Jim Corr cannot offer a credible alternative explanation or theory as to the collapse of building 7. How were the thousands of tonnes of explosives smuggled into a building with near complete occupancy? How on earth could they muffle the sounds of supports being cut, and the noisy messy work that is required to rig a building for demolition? Rigging a building for demolition can take weeks and months, how did they avoid anyone detecting these charges? More importantly how did these charges survive intact in a building fully involved in fire for several hours.

Finally the obvious question is "why?" Why go to all this trouble to demolish a smaller ancillary building?

The truth movement cannot come up with a "why" or "how" building 7 was demolished, never mind any experts to support their position.




I think you've just confirmed your own bias here. You want it to be suspicious so you find it suspicious

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871&q=911+mysteries&ei=lKZGSNL0BI6AjgLBqvC1DA&hl=en

have you watched ALL of that ??

i won't bother arguing with you as you know a lot more about this than me and can spout a lot of info but a lot of your questions to CT theories are answered in that video. workers from the trade centre talk in it and you see how it could have been rigged and why, and also answer to why building 7 was knocked which you asked above,

i'm not saying that it's all true and that i believe it all but i'd rather have it proved to be false a bit more convincingly. same goes for the other side, i'd rather that the above video be proved true more convincingly. basically i'm on the fence on this at the moment. it's just such a shame that so many innocent died.

superweld

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I shouldn't get involved really but... I read a page or two back that someone mentioned the fireman saying "pull it" as in blow up the building and there are two things wrong with this assumption.

Firstly, I remember it being addressed before and it was said that "pull it" was used in the context of the operation (the firefighting operation), and that to pull was never even related to demolition until after the 9/11 truthers came along. The common term is to "drop" a building.

Secondly, if the firefighter said "pull it" meaning blow it up, that means that this whole covert op of 9/11 was so low level that a ****ing firefighter is giving the instruction over radio to other firefighters to blow up a building. God I shouldn't have gotten into this...

yeah i'm getting out now!!

simonw

Saint Ruth wrote: »

No. Someone who claimed to be a "structural engineer from Cork" (yeah, that city of skyscrapers) said that.

And yeah, I've no doubt that many stupid people were swayed by the opinion of someone they never met and whose credentials and experience they didn't validate...

So we should be swayed by your "informed" opinion then?

Diogenes

superweld wrote: »

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871&q=911+mysteries&ei=lKZGSNL0BI6AjgLBqvC1DA&hl=en

have you watched ALL of that ??

Yes, yes I have watched Sophia's piece of crap.

i won't bother arguing with you as you know a lot more about this than me and can spout a lot of info but a lot of your questions to CT theories are answered in that video. workers from the trade centre talk in it and you see how it could have been rigged and why, and also answer to why building 7 was knocked which you asked above,

I suggest you watch and read

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/

Or Screw 911 mysteries. The makers of the video you linked to actually edited in sound effects of explosives to video of the WTC1&2 collapse in an effort to strength their claims about a Controlled Demolition. I ask you, what kind of truth movement" needs to lie to make it's case?

i'm not saying that it's all true and that i believe it all but i'd rather have it proved to be false a bit more convincingly.

What would you like? Seriously in all honesty what would convince you?

same goes for the other side, i'd rather that the above video be proved true more convincingly. basically i'm on the fence on this at the moment. it's just such a shame that so many innocent died.

And it's also a shame that people like Dylan Avery and Sofia Shafquat (director of 911 mysteries) use lies about these events for their personal profit.

superweld

Diogenes wrote: »

Yes, yes I have watched Sophia's piece of crap.
I ask you, what kind of truth movement" needs to lie to make it's case?

yeah like bush saying saddam had weapons of mass destructon but finding none. but that was for the greater good wasn't it.


ok, it's ok..... i'm gone

bonkey

superweld wrote: »

NO PLANE hit WTC7 so it fell from fire alone which was his point.

It didn't fall from fire alone.

It fell from the damage sustained from debris ejected from the collapsing towers, coupled with fire.

Or, put more simply, it fell from a combination of severe structural damage and uncontrolled fires....just like both of the towers.

bonkey

superweld wrote: »

well it's obviously better to be safe then sorry, hence the fire proofing.

So you accept that there is the possibility for fire to cause steel to fail. Excellent. We're agreed then - fire can cause steel to fail.

yes WTC7 had a nearby collapsing building but so did buildings immediately around the twin towers (3,4,5,6 not sure the no.'s) and there steel structures remained intact.

No, their steel structures didn't remain intact.

Have a look at http://911research.wtc7.net this pro-conspiracy site. It has links for each building, detailing what happened to them. Not one of them reained intact, although it is fair to say that none of the others suffered complete failure.

Then again, not one of these buildings was comparable in size to WTC1, 2 or 7, nor had any of them comparable designs.

WTC7 wasn't immediately around the towers and somehow managed to fall into it's basement like the towers. convenient eh.

It didn't "fall into its basement", and it was relatively close to the towers. I could be wrong, but I believe that no building closer to it was salvageable - every single one of them was subsequently demolished. If thats not the case, I'd be interested to know what is still standing.

i honestly don't know what happened but something is definitely not adding up so i'm not trying to nit pick you bonkey just keeping my curiousity alive

Nit-pick away. I have no claim to absolute truth, and am quite happy to be shown where my understanding of the facts is faulty.

If you haven't read it, incidentally, the interim report on WTC 7 is quite interesting. Also of note is the composite picture which has been released since then which shows some of the damage to the side of WTC7 which was facing the towers. Its...impressive.

bonkey

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I shouldn't get involved really but... I read a page or two back that someone mentioned the fireman saying "pull it" as in blow up the building and there are two things wrong with this assumption.

Firstly, I remember it being addressed before and it was said that "pull it" was used in the context of the operation (the firefighting operation), and that to pull was never even related to demolition until after the 9/11 truthers came along. The common term is to "drop" a building.

Secondly, if the firefighter said "pull it" meaning blow it up, that means that this whole covert op of 9/11 was so low level that a ****ing firefighter is giving the instruction over radio to other firefighters to blow up a building. God I shouldn't have gotten into this...

Thanks for reminding me...

Is "Pull" used by demolitions pros to mean "demolish with explosives?"

"Pull" = Withdraw firefighters from danger?

If you can stand Gravy's writing style, and cope with the fact that he put his efforts into content rather than layout, pretty-much that entire site of his is worth a read.

curiousn

Diogenes wrote: »

Originally Posted by curiousn
=> The failure to follow standard operating procedures

Diogenes wrote: »

Such as?

It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers. When the Air Force "scrambles" a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes. The Air Force plane will then fly next to the non-responsive plane, and rock their wings -- a way to say "follow me" to a nearby airport (if the plane merely has lost its radio equipment). If the intercepted plane refuses to respond, there is a graduated series of actions the Air Force can use -- firing tracer bullets in front of the plane, even shooting it down if it is a threat. This is analogous to police pulling motorists over for having their lights out - every driver in the US knows that when a police car behind them turns on their siren, they are supposed to pull over, just like every pilot knows that when an Air Force fighter plane pulls beside them, they are supposed to follow their orders, too.

The airspace over the northeastern US is among the busiest on the planet. It is home to the nation's political, military and financial headquarters, the largest population concentrations, and key strategic facilities. A jumbo jet in this area suddenly changing direction and altitude, and refusing to respond to air traffic controllers would be as dangerous as a truck on a busy rush-hour freeway driving the wrong way at full speed. When planes go off course in this busy environment, instant reactions make the difference between life and death -- which is why NORAD (North American Air Defense) practices these kinds of scenarios, and instantly scrambles fighters when there is any hint of a problem.

For critics of the official story of 9/11, the smokiest of the smoking guns is the "failure" of NORAD to intercept the planes.

The "timeline" of 9/11 was the first, and most important indicator of a massive discrepancy with the official story. NORAD's fighter interceptors can travel at supersonic speed, yet even the most basic calculations suggested that they had to fly far below even normal subsonic flight speeds to avoid reaching their destination (New York and Washington) in time. (See the "timeline" information lower on this webpage).

Apologists for the Bush regime state that since they were not expecting the 9/11 scenario, and thought that the hijacking would be a "traditional" type hijack, but this avoids the question of why the off-course planes were not intercepted (a procedure that does not require Presidential authorization, unlike the order to shoot down the plane).

Even if one is willing to grant exceptional deference to the Bush / Cheney administration, and pretend that they had no idea 9/11 was about to happen, there is no excuse for this ignorance at 9:03 am, when the second (South) tower was hit. At that point, the entire military's air defense system had no doubt that the hijackings were intentional, multiple attacks, and that additional hijacked planes would be used as weapons. This is the time when "President" Bush was content to continue to read to second graders, instead of assuming his duties as Commander-in-Chief.

When the second tower was struck, Flight 77 was near the Ohio - West Virginia border. Around this time, that plane made an unscheduled 180 degree turn, and stopped communicating with air traffic control -- a big clue that this was also one of the hijacked planes. Nevertheless, no serious efforts were made to intercept this plane between 9:03 am and 9:38 am, when it hit the west side of the Pentagon. Planes were scrambled from an air base in the Norfolk, Virginia area during this time, but inexplicably were sent east over the ocean, instead of northwest toward the Washington area. (The weather that morning was perfectly clear, and there is no innocent explanation for why these interceptor planes were sent over the water, away from DC, instead of toward the National Capitol Area.)


I consider it insulting on the intelligence to suggest that a trillion dollar airforce, the most advanced in human existence, couldn't defend it's own headquarters even when it was obvious the nation was under attack.

curiousn

Quote: curiousn
=> Suppressed warnings,

Diogenes wrote: »

Such as?

"They don't have any excuse because the information was in their lap, and they didn't do anything to prevent it." - Senator Richard Shelby, then ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee; member of the joint intelligence committee that investigated 9/11

"I don't believe any longer that it's a matter of connecting the dots. I think they had a veritable blueprint, and we want to know why they didn't act on it."
- Senator Arlen Specter, a Republican member of the joint intelligence committee that investigated 9/11


"There were lots of warnings."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

"Should we have known? Yes, we should have. Could we have known? Yes, I believe we could have because of the hard targets [CIA operatives were tracking]."
- Representative Porter Goss, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Republican co-chairman of the joint intelligence committee that investigated 9/11

curiousn

Diogenes wrote: »

Curiousn, and superweld, if you search this forum, you'll find that there isn't a single one of your claims that hasn't been refuted or challenged at length on this forum already.

Any claim can be challenged. e.g you could claim that England have a great football team and I could challenge that view. You also say that other claims were refuted. Refuted enough to satisfy you, but not me and millions others. With limited access to key information, we may never have the irrefutable, scientific evidence you claim you need and for this reason I don't think you'll ever change your point of view. That's fine. I respect that you've taken the time to actually look into the matter instead of just dismissing the whole notion.

However, the accumulation of circumstantial evidence shows that there needs to be investigation as to why this attack was allowed to happen.

Diogenes

superweld wrote: »

yeah like bush saying saddam had weapons of mass destructon but finding none. but that was for the greater good wasn't it.


ok, it's ok..... i'm gone

Wow a non sequitur, a strawman, and false analogy in one statement, conspiracy theory BINGO!

See superweld you've presented the perfect Conspiracy theorist argument in a nutshell, when challenged on your "facts" you ignore the facts and wander off on a fallacy. I've never claimed the Bush administration were right in the case for the Iraq war, does that legitamise the makers of 911 mysteries to doctor footage of the collapse? No it doesn't.

curiousn wrote:

It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers. When the Air Force "scrambles" a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes. The Air Force plane will then fly next to the non-responsive plane, and rock their wings -- a way to say "follow me" to a nearby airport (if the plane merely has lost its radio equipment). If the intercepted plane refuses to respond, there is a graduated series of actions the Air Force can use -- firing tracer bullets in front of the plane, even shooting it down if it is a threat. This is analogous to police pulling motorists over for having their lights out - every driver in the US knows that when a police car behind them turns on their siren, they are supposed to pull over, just like every pilot knows that when an Air Force fighter plane pulls beside them, they are supposed to follow their orders, too.

The above is utter utter nonsense, if it is true surely you can present a single pilot who can claim that this is standard behaviour when NORAD lose contact with a plane. One needs to only look at the Payne Stewart incident, a plane was followed for hours after it failed to response to USAF intercept planes.

The airspace over the northeastern US is among the busiest on the planet. It is home to the nation's political, military and financial headquarters, the largest population concentrations, and key strategic facilities. A jumbo jet in this area suddenly changing direction and altitude, and refusing to respond to air traffic controllers would be as dangerous as a truck on a busy rush-hour freeway driving the wrong way at full speed. When planes go off course in this busy environment, instant reactions make the difference between life and death -- which is why NORAD (North American Air Defense) practices these kinds of scenarios, and instantly scrambles fighters when there is any hint of a problem.

Any evidence to support this assertion?

Apologists for the Bush regime state that since they were not expecting the 9/11 scenario, and thought that the hijacking would be a "traditional" type hijack, but this avoids the question of why the off-course planes were not intercepted (a procedure that does not require Presidential authorization, unlike the order to shoot down the plane).

Even if one is willing to grant exceptional deference to the Bush / Cheney administration, and pretend that they had no idea 9/11 was about to happen, there is no excuse for this ignorance at 9:03 am, when the second (South) tower was hit. At that point, the entire military's air defense system had no doubt that the hijackings were intentional, multiple attacks, and that additional hijacked planes would be used as weapons. This is the time when "President" Bush was content to continue to read to second graders, instead of assuming his duties as Commander-in-Chief.

When the second tower was struck, Flight 77 was near the Ohio - West Virginia border. Around this time, that plane made an unscheduled 180 degree turn, and stopped communicating with air traffic control -- a big clue that this was also one of the hijacked planes. Nevertheless, no serious efforts were made to intercept this plane between 9:03 am and 9:38 am, when it hit the west side of the Pentagon. Planes were scrambled from an air base in the Norfolk, Virginia area during this time, but inexplicably were sent east over the ocean, instead of northwest toward the Washington area. (The weather that morning was perfectly clear, and there is no innocent explanation for why these interceptor planes were sent over the water, away from DC, instead of toward the National Capitol Area.)

As you mentioned this was the busiest airspace in the world. How could they track every plane? Including the four planes who switched off their transponders, and refused contact.

They don't have any excuse because the information was in their lap, and they didn't do anything to prevent it." - Senator Richard Shelby, then ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee; member of the joint intelligence committee that investigated 9/11

"I don't believe any longer that it's a matter of connecting the dots. I think they had a veritable blueprint, and we want to know why they didn't act on it."
- Senator Arlen Specter, a Republican member of the joint intelligence committee that investigated 9/11


"There were lots of warnings."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

"Should we have known? Yes, we should have. Could we have known? Yes, I believe we could have because of the hard targets [CIA operatives were tracking]."
- Representative Porter Goss, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Republican co-chairman of the joint intelligence committee that investigated 9/11

Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it. There were thousands of warnings from a variety of sources for a variety of threats, it's very easy to say afterwards 'they should have seen this" Can you please point out the specific warning of specific threats that was "suppressed"

Any claim can be challenged. e.g you could claim that England have a great football team and I could challenge that view. You also say that other claims were refuted. Refuted enough to satisfy you, but not me and millions others.

Yeah, see for example you've specifically stated that the pentagon had "air defenses" I've asked you for evidence to support your claims. This isn't a england is good or bad, thats a matter opinion. If you claimed england scored 15 goals in every home game in the past ten years, I could easily provide evidence that you were wrong. You are claiming that the pentagon had air defenses, I'm saying that it an actual provable fact, so you go and prove it. The Pentagon doesn't have Air Defenses, curiousn, prove me wrong.

we may never have the irrefutable, scientific evidence you claim you need and for this reason I don't think you'll ever change your point of view. That's fine. I respect that you've taken the time to actually look into the matter instead of just dismissing the whole notion.

However, the accumulation of circumstantial evidence shows that there needs to be investigation as to why this attack was allowed to happen.

You've made several basic factual errors, about what the airforce does when it intercepts, how fast air force jets can be scrambled, and what defenses the pentagon had, or doesn't have. If you're going to claim this is the circumstantial evidence when you are fundamentally ignorant of basic facts, says alot. Sorry.

younge

KERPAL wrote: »

I just think its a disgrace that you have the cheek to question 9/11. Its not a matter for conspiracies, a few thousand people died, it was Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts, there is no denying it, yes the usa might have withheld information to save face a bit, but there is not a chance that a conspiracy of that magnitude would be concocted by any organisation. The benefits of 9/11 to USA are unclear, there were none.

KERPAL sorry for the lateness but to be honest you clearly don't really know what your talking about at all. Building seven that wasn't even hit by a plane but recieved mere debris imploded practically magically and in that building contained all the evidence regarding the enron fiasco that was being worked on by prosecueters. Also long story short pentagon hit by plane; area hit was the accounting department that was investigating 2.3 trillon dollars in 'miss placed' funds that was announced public on september 9th. That department was moved a month before the attack. Also where are the profits going from iraqi oil? America contracters..

younge

Sorry i mean moved as in moved to the area where the attack occured.

tunaman

bonkey wrote: »

Tell you what...lets put this to the test.

Pick one thing in the official findings that doesn't make sense. Don't post a list of your top 10. Don't post a link to some video.

Pick one thing that you are absolutely, positively certain does not make sense.

If you want to, explain why it makes no sense. If you don't want to go to that effort...that's fine, too. The important thing is that you post something that you are 100% certain cannot be sensibly explained and that you limit yourself to one thing.

I'm willing to bet here and now that no matter what you post, it will either turn out to be an inaccurate statement, or there will be a sensible explanation for it (although I accept that you mightn't accept that explanation). That, or that you will be unable to pick one thing, or you won't take up the challenge at all.

Yes, yes. People have been saying that since before there was an explanation.

Seriously...just one thing. It can't be that hard.

The claim made by the US military that the airliners were invisible to them, as their radar was supposedly pointing the wrong way.

Within minutes of the north tower being hit, news helicopters were up in the air in plenty of time for the impact of the south tower. The US military with a $500 billion a year budget were still nowhere to be seen an hour later...

This is the one of the most extraordinary claims ever made by the US military and yet, yourself, a self-proclaimed skeptic doesn't even question it.

So I assumed you checked out their story and it proved correct?

Otherwise you just read what they say and presented it here as the truth, despite the fact that it has been proved they lied and changed their story many times about their so called response to multiple hijackings.

curiousn

Diogenes wrote: »

Yeah, see for example you've specifically stated that the pentagon had "air defenses" I've asked you for evidence to support your claims.

I hope you don't think I was saying that large missiles can pop out of the walls and shoot down any dangerous objects?

The pentagon controlls a trillion dollar airforce!! Surely the most advanced war machine in history of mankind has a plan to have aircraft defend it from surprise attack! If you dispute this do you think that I could just charter a private jet, fill it with exploxives and have it flown into the white house or pentagon? Not a chance.


"The power to see to it that regular government operations don't occur is one of the greatest controls over power you can wield in a government."
-- Colonel Fletcher Prouty, Pentagon liaison to CIA

curiousn

Diogenes wrote: »

The above is utter utter nonsense, if it is true surely you can present a single pilot who can claim that this is standard behaviour when NORAD lose contact with a plane.

Any evidence to support this assertion?

According to NORAD, the FAA notified it at 9:24 a.m. that there was something suspicious with American Flight 77. Two F-16 fighters were immediately ordered launched, and they got airborne at 9:30 a.m. The New York Times reports that at first, they were headed to New York at "top speed" reaching "600 mph within two minutes," before vectoring toward Washington instead. These planes didn't arrive in the vicinity of the Pentagon until 9:49 a.m., 12 minutes after American Flight 77 hit it. (They then stayed in the skies above Washington to protect against the fourth errant airliner, United Flight 93, with orders to shoot it down if necessary, a command mooted by an apparent passenger insurrection that caused that plane to crash in a Pennsylvania field.) The F-16s covered the 130 miles of their journey in 19 minutes, which would be an average speed of about 410 mph.

Now, that's artificially low because these fighters spent several minutes flying toward New York, but even allowing for this, you don't come up with anything like what the Air Force (which may know better than the New York Times) says is the plane's top speed of 1,500 mph. So, again, why didn't NORAD feel the need for speed? It wasn't because of FAA regulations prohibiting supersonic flight over land in U.S. civil airspace. A NORAD spokesman told me that fighters violate that speed restriction "when circumstances warrant."

That is, in both cases where NORAD launched fighters, a closer look suggests that it's just false that there was nothing they could have done. For one thing, they could have flown faster.

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2060825


Again, it's "utter nonsense" to suggest that a trilion dollar airforce couldn't defent it's own headquarters. I don't expect you to ever agree with this, but I've no doubt that others reading this post will draw their own conclusions (hopefully after doing some of their own research from a wide variety of sources).

superweld

Diogenes wrote: »

See superweld you've presented the perfect Conspiracy theorist argument in a nutshell, when challenged on your "facts" you ignore the facts and wander off on a fallacy. I've never claimed the Bush administration were right in the case for the Iraq war, does that legitamise the makers of 911 mysteries to doctor footage of the collapse? No it doesn't.

no but you're twisting things here, you replied to my post asking "I ask you, what kind of truth movement" needs to lie to make it's case?" so i gave an example. this example also happens to show that US government side of this topic are not exactly truthful - the same government accused of being involved somehow in planning 911,

tell me who is in a position to pull of the better fake videos, plant more experts, cover up information and fake information, the US government or some conspiracy theory nuts as you might call them????

and haven't we agreed that the US goverment will do whatever it takes to get their way? (yeah i nkow not fully agreed, but you basically agreed they lied about iraq)


(great debate by the way )

Gegerty

Franko73 wrote: »

Regardless of if it is conspiricy nonsense or hidden fact, I think it is important that people are aware of what is going on behind the scenes. As Vincent Browne point out yesterday the Lisbon treaty document is completely unreadable to the normal Joe Soap so we dont even know what we are voting for or against and hence the scaremongering and lies are put forward by our wonderful leaders who have admitted they have not even read it!

It's not designed for the average Joe Soap. It's not designed for referendum. Since Ireland is the only country holding a referendum its pretty much up to our government to circulate a readable version for Joe Soap. This is why there is loads of information out there for the average Joe Soap to read, so that we can understand it.

I am not hearing any conspiracy theories on here. Aliens are watching us, thats a conspiracy theory. What I'm hearing is just pure ignorance.

Diogenes

curiousn wrote: »

Now, that's artificially low because these fighters spent several minutes flying toward New York, but even allowing for this, you don't come up with anything like what the Air Force (which may know better than the New York Times) says is the plane's top speed of 1,500 mph. So, again, why didn't NORAD feel the need for speed? It wasn't because of FAA regulations prohibiting supersonic flight over land in U.S. civil airspace. A NORAD spokesman told me that fighters violate that speed restriction "when circumstances warrant."

That is, in both cases where NORAD launched fighters, a closer look suggests that it's just false that there was nothing they could have done. For one thing, they could have flown faster.

I think you'll find that any pilot will tell you that an F16 can only fly at 1,500mph for very brief periods of time. It's it escape boost. If an F16 had tried to fly to new york on maximum afterburners it would have had to have turned around instantly because it would be out of fuel.

If the F16's could have flown to New York, in the time alotted why haven't pilots, air traffic controllers, or NORAD officials kicked up a fuss, at how they were hampered? Why aren't there voices on the NORAD tapes of air traffic controllers demanding to know why the planes aren't traveling fast enough?

superweld wrote:

no but you're twisting things here, you replied to my post asking "I ask you, what kind of truth movement" needs to lie to make it's case?" so i gave an example. this example also happens to show that US government side of this topic are not exactly truthful - the same government accused of being involved somehow in planning 911,

No sorry not good enough, the truth movement is saying the US government lied about the events of 911 and conspired to cause the collapse of the WTC, they then present video footage which "proves"
their case. Only we discover the audio on the video is doctored. Why on earth am I going to trust a single further claim these people make

tell me who is in a position to pull of the better fake videos, plant more experts, cover up information and fake information, the US government or some conspiracy theory nuts as you might call them????

Because er the experts that dismiss conspiracy theorists aren't plants, they're academics and engineers with respected careers. And if history has taught us anything it's that large bureaucracies are ultimately useless at keeping secrets.

Contemplate how many people need to be in on your conspiracy theory. Security staff at the WTC, the dozens of engineers, and explosive experts
necessary to wire the buildings. The NORAD staff told to "stand down", FBI agents, CIA agents, your conspiracy requires vast amounts of people to remain silent about their involvement in the greatest terrorist attack against their own country? How do you keep them silence? Their family's silence?

Consider the Watergate Scandal, the number of people involved in orchestrating the break in numbered in less than dozen. Yet this conspiracy came crashing down and destroyed a presidency.

Think of all the people who came forward over the Intelligence failures in the run up to war, David Kelly, Valerie Palme and her husband, how could the US government effectively silence all the 911 conspiritists, while at the same time springing so many leeks about the Iraq war.

It simply doesn't make sense.

superweld

their families probably knew nothing. why would they?

workers from the WTC buildings have reported strange goings on prior to 911but sure nobody listens to them, nobody listens to anyone it seems who questions this.

these covers could take years and years to come out (if they are cover ups) and something as HUGE as this would have been covered from all angles with people already in place to discredit anyone who questions it. you could be one, you have an answer prepared for everything! :pac: if it was a cover up then those involved have a lot more to lose than anyone has to gain so don't expect it to be easy.

but without doubt, nobody should accept what they are told without questioning it. where would we be if we believed everything we hear on the radio, newspapers, television? i certainly don't believe everything the US tell us. there's more power there than bush could ever dream of.

anyway i'll bow out of this now and do some research on it and try to keep an open mind.

Diogenes

superweld wrote: »

their families probably knew nothing. why would they?

You don't think if you were part of conspiracy to kill thousands of americans , that you could keep it from your nearest and dearest?

workers from the WTC buildings have reported strange goings on prior to 911but sure nobody listens to them, nobody listens to anyone it seems who questions this.

Worker. Singular. Scott Forbes. He claims that there was a "power down" in the part of the north tower the weekend prior to 911.

Here's a couple of points.

A weekend would not be enough time to prep a building for controlled demolition. Particularly if the power was down and the lifts were off.

No one has come forward to support his claim.

The observation deck at the top of the tower was definitely open that weekend.

So you've one man out of the tens of thousands of people who worked in the building.

these covers could take years and years to come out (if they are cover ups) and something as HUGE as this would have been covered from all angles with people already in place to discredit anyone who questions it. you could be one, you have an answer prepared for everything! :pac: if it was a cover up then those involved have a lot more to lose than anyone has to gain so don't expect it to be easy.

Yes the US government pays me to post here. Lets get Jim Corr to lend you his tinfoil hat.

If that is the case superweld it goes back to all these internet documentaries like loose change. Why didn't the All powerful all knowing NWO stop loose change?









Maddox said it best.

but without doubt, nobody should accept what they are told without questioning it. where would we be if we believed everything we hear on the radio, newspapers, television? i certainly don't believe everything the US tell us. there's more power there than bush could ever dream of.

anyway i'll bow out of this now and do some research on it and try to keep an open mind.

Your boasts about skeptical thinking run at odds to your apparent willingness to swallow poorly made propaganda that fits your worldview.

But if you really are interested in the other side of the coin, start here

superweld

Diogenes wrote: »

You don't think if you were part of conspiracy to kill thousands of americans , that you could keep it from your nearest and dearest?

they are the people you'd want to keep it from the most. how many people haven't a clue what their family do in their jobs? that's just ridiculous. just because they know their job title and about the occassional deal doesn't mean they'd know about eveything. are you going to try prove me wrong on that now? this isn't a conspiracy theory!

and yeah can i have a tin hat please and some of your money? i was totally serious

again for the record: i don't know what to think about the whole 911 thing, i'm just questioning popular belief - i'd hate to think someone was tyring to spread the truth and being dismissed without consideration. i will read the other side too

ill probably be back

R0C0

I'd like to know what you guys know that the FBI doesn't know. You seem 100% certain that it was Bin Laden and Al Qaeda that carried out these attacks, but Bin Laden has never been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11. There is not enough evidence to charge him.

Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI said when questioned about this “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Also, just out of interest, do you people just not believe that the U.S government are capable or willing to carry out False Flag terrorism???
Are you at all familiar with America's history of False Flag terrorism??

Diogenes

R0C0 wrote: »

I'd like to know what you guys know that the FBI doesn't know. You seem 100% certain that it was Bin Laden and Al Qaeda that carried out these attacks, but Bin Laden has never been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11. There is not enough evidence to charge him.

Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI said when questioned about this “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

This again?

In order to be listed on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitive list, the suspect must have been indicted for the crime. To indict Bin Laden formally for the 9/11 attacks would require presenting evidence in a court of law; such evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11 would include intelligence sources, and Al-Qaeda detainees. Making such sources (and methods) publicly known, perhaps isn't advised.

Or as the Washington Post puts it;

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is a longtime and prominent member of the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" list, which notes his role as the suspected mastermind of the deadly U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa on Aug. 7, 1998.

But another more infamous date -- Sept. 11, 2001 -- is nowhere to be found on the same FBI notice.

The curious omission underscores the Justice Department's decision, so far, to not seek formal criminal charges against bin Laden for approving al-Qaeda's most notorious and successful terrorist attack. The notice says bin Laden is "a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world" but does not provide details.

Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices.

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.

"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."

Bin Laden was placed on the Ten Most Wanted list in June 1999 after being indicted for murder, conspiracy and other charges in connection with the embassy bombings, and a $5 million reward was put on his head at that time. The listing was updated after Sept. 11, 2001, to include a higher reward of $25 million, but no mention of the attacks was added.

Washington Post article

How retarded do you think this conspiracy is? The US government stage 911, accuse Bin Laden, and then don't bother to provide the FBI with evidence to indite him? This complex conspiracy holds sway over every stage of the US government, just not the FBI?

Also, just out of interest, do you people just not believe that the U.S government are capable or willing to carry out False Flag terrorism???
Are you at all familiar with America's history of False Flag terrorism??

Oh goody something tells me you're going to combine the words "Operation" with "North" and "Woods". Please tell me how a plan conceived over 50 years is relevant to current US policy? A plan that didn't include any civilian personal. Oh and was instantly shelved before it was reviewed by the joint chiefs, and the officer who formulated it was sacked soon afterwards?

You mean that kind of history of False Flag terrorism? Or would you like to talk about the Gulf of Tonkin?

Pixel8

Iranian Coup d'état 1953 by America:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

Venezuelan Coup d'état 2002 by America:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_coup_attempt_of_2002

Ron Paul warns of possible False Flag Operation on Iran by Bush:

"I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.”

http://suitcaseman.gnn.tv/blogs/21029/Congressman_Warns_False_Flag_Operation_May_Be_Coming

Diogenes, the Gulf of Tonkin incident is a conspiracy fact, admitted:

In 2005, it was revealed in an official NSA declassified report that the USS Maddox first fired warning shots on the August 2 incident and that there may not have been North Vietnamese boats at the August 4 incident. The report said:

It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on 2 August.

That attack (which didnt actually happen) gave Lyndon Johnson the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution; the reason America needed, to enter the Vietnam war.

They did it once before, what are they capable of now? (They did it a lot more than once before...)

America is in bed with Israel, they both benefitted from the Iraq war...:

Mossad Controls US Government:
http://www.nogw.com/mossad.html

American and Israeli War Crimes:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/02/8679/

I suggest you watch this documentary to get a glimpse of the real side of America that not many are aware of:

War Made Easy:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8383084962209910782&hl=en