911 Truth Movement

[tigertim]

There was was an unsinkable ship called Titanic yet on its first voyage it sunk after simply hitting an ice berg.

So many poorly planned aspects of the evacuation and rescue process.

How could an unsinkable ship sink on ts first voyage?

One could level many of similar accusations of 911 to Titanic but they don't. Why? Because the theorists haven't bothered to make up a conspiracy for the arm chair experts to "know the truth" ;D

 

[Leysy Days]

Having not had an opinion on this either way until now, been an interesting read.

Gotta say though, after reading this, the likelyhood of it being an inside job seem extremely remote. Nearly all of the fallout seems to have reasonable explanations & the few that appear odd (which surely you would expect with something of this magnitude) come across as far more likely than any conspiracy to leysy.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Look into Operation Northwoods Tooheys. Then read some of the circumstantial evidence surrounding the events of 9/11. If that doesn't at least open your mind to the possibility there's nothing more I can do.

Interesting for sure. Also interesting that Kennedy knocked it on the head so it was never realised.
One thing to theorise, another thing to actually carry those acts out and deal with the ensuing fallout.

 

[Disco08]

True, but it also demonstrates the ability of the US upper management to think that way and also to conceal it from the public.

Having not had an opinion on this either way until now, been an interesting read.

Gotta say though, after reading this, the likelyhood of it being an inside job seem extremely remote. Nearly all of the fallout seems to have reasonable explanations & the few that appear odd (which surely you would expect with something of this magnitude) come across as far more likely than any conspiracy to leysy.

Can you offer any explanation for either of these scenarios Leysy:

I think the removal of commercial pilots' ability to defend themselves adequately and the change in shootdown protocal to make he and Cheney the sole people able to stop the incoming attacks is very pertinent in regard to Bush's response. Any sane person, with the knowledge that only they and one other person could stop further attacks (without knowledge of what was happening he couldn't have had any idea how many more planes might have been heading towards targets or how many had already been intercepted by F-16's awaiting the green light to bring them down, especially given he'd already stated he knew the first plane had already crashed into WTC1) would have moved as quickly as possible to get in a position to do just that. As it was, Bush sat motionless (some psychologsts and eyewitnesses say looking very nervous) for nearly half an hour.

I'd love to see a rational explanation of this evidence. This isn't a rhetorical question. I've thought about it but can't imagine one.

The problem was it was a foolish plan that had no chance of succeeding. Box cutters against pistols? Yeah right. Hijacked 767's flown by rookie pilots against F-16's with a state of the art defense force on full alert and able to think for itself? Sure. Hijackers able to check into flights with false names if the Bin Laden taskforce had been tracking them because of their suspicious activity leading up to 9/11? I don't think so. Those 4 facts alone are a smoking gun. Not an upside down book. Heaps of forewarning was made from other countries regarding an impending Al Qaeda terrorist attack using hijacked commercial airliners. As a response to that (and with that knowledge in mind) Bush's administration dismantles the Al Qaeda taskforce, removes commercial pilots' ability to defend themselves in a hijack situation and removes the defense force's ability to act appropriately and autonomously to such a threat. Again, this is the type of evidence that deserves debate here. I'm willing to be convinced as to why this was a reasonable response but you guys have yet to offer anything even remotely compelling in its defense.

Do you think incompetence and coincidence are adequate explanations of these events?

There was was an unsinkable ship called Titanic yet on its first voyage it sunk after simply hitting an ice berg.

So many poorly planned aspects of the evacuation and rescue process.

How could an unsinkable ship sink on ts first voyage?

One could level many of similar accusations of 911 to Titanic but they don't. Why? Because the theorists haven't bothered to make up a conspiracy for the arm chair experts to "know the truth" ;D

Probably because there's no precedent, no evidence or no motive.

Right so in 1960-some-odd, which super computer did the designers use to model the effects of flying a future aircraft into the WTC?

You don't need a supercomputer. The 747 was already in service so they knew the possibilities.

the holographic 2nd plane is obviously a fringe theory. But other contentions such as: WTC 1 ,2 & 7 were bought down by pre-set demolitions, the pentagon wrecked by something other than an American Airlines passenger planes; flight 93 bought down by something other than passengers fighting for control of the plane from terrorists; planted documents; Silverstein being in on it; Bush and Cheney being in on it; defence force being in it ( at least at some level). These are all part of the mainstream truthers "suspicions", to put it kindly, right?

What will they be investigating if not the above?

I'm no expert but I thought the idea is to look at the evidence first and draw conclusion after. Let a proper investigaton happen as it should have 10 years ago and see what it finds.

For instance looking at the FDR from AA77 should reveal whether or not it flew into the Pentagon. Looking at the FDR from UAL93 should reveal whether it was shot down or not. Interrogating Bush and Cheney and their staff under oath and using lie detectors should also reveal the truth, even if it is only indicative of incompetence. Testing for controlled demolition maybe more problematic given the removal of much of the evidence but perhaps there are still ways of discovering the truth one way or another.

 

[Tigers of Old]

True, but it also demonstrates the ability of the US upper management to think that way and also to conceal it from the public.

50 years ago.

 

[evo]

you an engineer ?

Now the only thing you have to back up your logic is the OR which was compromised.

Seems to me we have more to back up our beliefs than that. We also have the shere infeasibility of a secret cabal of detonation exprts being able to wire up two of the world's most prominent icons - that has thousands upon thousands of people working in every day- without anyone noticing.

 

[Harry]

Having not had an opinion on this either way until now, been an interesting read.

Gotta say though, after reading this, the likelyhood of it being an inside job seem extremely remote. Nearly all of the fallout seems to have reasonable explanations & the few that appear odd (which surely you would expect with something of this magnitude) come across as far more likely than any conspiracy to leysy.

typical of someone who thinks the RFC can do no wrong ;D

 

[KnightersRevenge]

you an engineer ?

My logic says it would burn and burn and fall apart gradually with the top section collapsing onto the bottom section and gradually mangling until the fires were put out. but, like you, I'm no expert. We have differing logic and opinion.

Now the only thing you have to back up your logic is the OR which was compromised. I have sceptical engineers and architects who have nothing to gain.

How does my being an engineer change an argument based only on logic? Yours versus mine. I have a rudimentary understanding of physics. How much energy did the plane have just before impact? The energy comprised of it's momentum plus all the unused fuel I imagine. If it disintegrated upon impact then all of that energy was transferred to the tower. What do think that would do? Now you've got all that energy plus you have severed much of building in half. All of the energy in the top section wants to go only one way and much of what was designed to keep it there is now gone. So all that energy is now trying to pull it down. You know the rest.

 

[Disco08]

50 years ago.

You think their morals were better under Bush? Also, you don't need as many conspiritors to let an attack succeed as you do to fake one.

 

[Rosy]

Not sure if you responded to this post, or to others who questioned you about it, Harry.

Considering this evidence does your perception of logic tell you there was a plane invoked or not?

does it sit comfortably in your mind that a plane crashed into the pentagon (hitting the ground first by reports) and went through 6 layers of concrete walls to create a neat circular exit hole at the end? With no vision of significant wreckage and no vision of the plane when there were many cameras around and the FBI confiscated the vision from hotels accross the road? How can there be no vision? If it does then fine, but I can understand why it doesn't with some.

Are you implying there wasn't a plane involved?

Are these images FBI photoshopping?

 

[evo]

.
Interrogating Bush and Cheney and their staff under oath and using lie detectors

that would be pretty funny to watch.

 

[Disco08]

Given the roles they played it's what should have happened.

 

[Tigers of Old]

You think there morals were better under Bush

I've no idea Disco.
I do know though that if Bush & co did put something as crazy as an attack on their own people together, they would want to make damn sure no one found out. Because if it's ever discovered that they played a part in executing those civilians on 911, either tomorrow or in 50 years time, he and his family would want to have mighty good protection from the angry families of those affected.
I don't believe any amount of money is worth that risk. George would need his own spider hole..

 

[tigertim]

Such as? I try and reply to every point in every post directed at me, even though at times they come 20 deep with 4 or 5 of you on the attack while I'm trying to make coffees at the same time. ;D I'd be very interested to see these points/posts I've ignored Tim. I'll also try and address them if you can quote them for me.


If Bush and his government had decided that a terrorist attack would be a good way to go to war against Afghanistan (for a start) a la Northwoods then this was the perfect chance. All these countries are warning them of the attack. They know it's coming. All they have to do is make sure it succeeds and off they go. They certainly jumped at the chance quite enthusiatically, didn't they? Didn't take them long to have the terrorists' profiles and a fake Bin Laden confession up to parade in front of the hysterical masses did it?

Really? Care to try and back that up Tim?

The greatest atrocity is the civilians (and even the soldiers) killed in the name of the war on terror that they started by delberately allowing these attacks to succeed. The US would never recover from that.

The eyewitness you chose to ignore are fairly easy to find. There were 1000s who saw planes crash in 4 locations. To infer there aren't any is folly. We can't be doing the research for the theorists.

The US would "never recover" if Obama or anyone else "uncovered" this atrocity? So best leave t alone? Got it.

And I was wrong on saying you believe a plane flew into the Pentagon, I re-read and you were referring to the 2nd plane into tower 2. Sorry.

 

[tigertim]

Given the roles they played it's what should have happened.

Given what roles they played?

 

[Disco08]

They were the two people charged with leading the US defense. They failed miserably.

The eyewitness you chose to ignore are fairly easy to find. There were 1000s who saw planes crash in 4 locations. To infer there aren't any is folly. We can't be doing the research for the theorists.

The US would "never recover" if Obama or anyone else "uncovered" this atrocity? So best leave t alone? Got it.

And I was wrong on saying you believe a plane flew into the Pentagon, I re-read and you were referring to the 2nd plane into tower 2. Sorry.

No worries.

What do you think the international community's reaction might be to finding out the US played a part in 9/11? No president can let that happen.

I'm only disputing the UAL93 crash. In that case plenty of eyewitness testimony exists to suggest it was shot down.

Is that it?

 

[Leysy Days]

Can you offer any explanation for either of these scenarios Leysy:

Leysy is not getting involved. Only offering his quick opinion.

typical of someone who thinks the RFC can do no wrong ;D

Indeed. ;D

 

[tigertim]

True, but it also demonstrates the ability of the US upper management to think that way and also to conceal it from the public.

Can you offer any explanation for either of these scenarios Leysy:

Do you think incompetence and coincidence are adequate explanations of these events?

Probably because there's no precedent, no evidence or no motive.

You don't need a supercomputer. The 747 was already in service so they knew the possibilities.

I'm no expert but I thought the idea is to look at the evidence first and draw conclusion after. Let a proper investigaton happen as it should have 10 years ago and see what it finds.

For instance looking at the FDR from AA77 should reveal whether or not it flew into the Pentagon. Looking at the FDR from UAL93 should reveal whether it was shot down or not. Interrogating Bush and Cheney and their staff under oath and using lie detectors should also reveal the truth, even if it is only indicative of incompetence. Testing for controlled demolition maybe more problematic given the removal of much of the evidence but perhaps there are still ways of discovering the truth one way or another.

There's no precedence of ships sinking after getting hit by an iceberg? And there's precedence of planes been flown into sky scrapers? There's no "Evidence" of any conspiracy of 911 and the 911 motive is ...ummm, power and money that went to? Fine, te Titanic was actually bombed by Cunard so that they could corner the market and wipe out Whitestar. The plan was first mooted in the Westwood paper of 1898 if you want more proof.

Surely you don't think a little bit of ice sunk that massive ship?

 

[tigertim]

Leysy is not getting involved. Only offering his quick opinion.

Soft!

 

[Leysy Days]

Smart! ;D