911 Truth Movement

[Baloo]

Of course not. Put qualified, independent invetigators and experts on the investigation team.

What reason could they possibly have to make any of the evidence surrounding 9/11 classified?

Had he ever flown a plane larger than a Cessna?

You don't think there's any evidence at all that's worthy of further investigation?

To all of you, how is supporting the type of investigation that should have happened in this first place advocating a wider conspiracy? I've already said I'd accept any finding of an independent inquiry that had full subpoeana power and proper transparency. If those findings support the OR narrative, I'll happily accept that. Until that happens though, I'm of the opinion there are far too many holes and untruths in the OR and too many questions left unanswered.

You've been advocating a wider conspiracy from the beginning. That's what most are debating you over. From powerful families with more to make from a war, from the govt knowing about the attack and letting it happen, to Larry over insuring because he planted explosives in his buildings, to the plane hitting WTC 2 not having windows. All you ad Harry have done is insist there are forces at play in the US tha made 911 happen.

If your backing away from tha claim then for me at least it changes the debate. But don't try and tell us now you've never claimed there was a deep dark sinister conspiracy behind 911.

 

[tigertim]

More from the mastermind of 911:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KBm5ZSWbD14

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hqMhffi8SHM

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Be6tunbRcs8&feature=related

 

[Disco08]

You've been advocating a wider conspiracy from the beginning. That's what most are debating you over. From powerful families with more to make from a war, from the govt knowing about the attack and letting it happen, to Larry over insuring because he planted explosives in his buildings, to the plane hitting WTC 2 not having windows. All you ad Harry have done is insist there are forces at play in the US tha made 911 happen.

If your backing away from tha claim then for me at least it changes the debate. But don't try and tell us now you've never claimed there was a deep dark sinister conspiracy behind 911.

I'll happily admit I think the evidence points to complicity within the upper ranks of the US administration. I think the analysis I did of the circumstantial evidence surrounding the disbanding of the Bin Laden task force and the changing of the pilot gun law and intercept shootdown protocol in the context of mass warning about a possible Al Qaeda attack using hijacked commercial aircraft is very compelling. I'd still like to see anyone present a reasonable explanation for that chain of events.

That said though, if that was fully investigated in the manner I've been advoacting I'd accept any findings even if they didn't confirm my suspicions.

Mostly though I would like the see a proper re-investigation for the sake of the families effected by these events. Most of you seem to to accept the 9/11 commission was either inadequate or even a cover up to mask incompetence, so at the very least I'd expect you guys to support a re-investigation so definitve answers can be found as the why these events happpened. If gross incompetence was the cause, don't we need to get to the bottom of it?

 

[U2Tigers]

Is this thread still going.

Surely every dodgy thing about 9/11 has been discussed already.

 

[tigertim]

Is this thread still going.

Surely every dodgy thing about 9/11 has been discussed already.

Twice

 

[tigertim]

Of course not. Put qualified, independent invetigators and experts on the investigation team.

What reason could they possibly have to make any of the evidence surrounding 9/11 classified?

Had he ever flown a plane larger than a Cessna?

You don't think there's any evidence at all that's worthy of further investigation?

To all of you, how is supporting the type of investigation that should have happened in this first place advocating a wider conspiracy? I've already said I'd accept any finding of an independent inquiry that had full subpoeana power and proper transparency. If those findings support the OR narrative, I'll happily accept that. Until that happens though, I'm of the opinion there are far too many holes and untruths in the OR and too many questions left unanswered.

I don't know if he'd flown a plane larger than a Cessna. I assumed a pilots licence for a 737 meant he had but it was an assumption.

 

[Disco08]

Is this thread still going.

Surely every dodgy thing about 9/11 has been discussed already.

Nope. There's two or three sets of evidence I've tried to raise for discussion that have been met with deafening silence thus far.

 

[tigertim]

Nope. There's two or three sets of evidence I've tried to raise for discussion that have been met with deafening silence thus far.

Ok, refer them again but succinctly please. And preferably one by one. I'm a simple guy!
And to be fair I think both sides are guilty of not answering some questions as the response usually involves another question which creates this circular discussion.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Of course not. Put qualified, independent invetigators and experts on the investigation team.

Had he ever flown a plane larger than a Cessna?

Yet another pointless question. I'll say yes, can you prove me wrong?

To all of you, how is supporting the type of investigation that should have happened in this first place advocating a wider conspiracy? I've already said I'd accept any finding of an independent inquiry that had full subpoeana power and proper transparency. If those findings support the OR narrative, I'll happily accept that. Until that happens though, I'm of the opinion there are far too many holes and untruths in the OR and too many questions left unanswered.

Sorry but bollocks Disco. If you were simply advocating for an investigation (seemingly of your design, I'm still not sure why you are the only arbiter of expertise and independence?) that would be different. You are advocating for an investigation using the material and ideas of the conspiracy theorist web. If you are not advocating a conspiracy make your argument without them.

 

[evo]

Isn't it best to just judge the evidence on its merits and try and draw conclusion after?

But when you think about it you are doing this opposite of that in the case of the Pentagon incident. I hate to revive the ID/Christianity comparisons but it does remind me of the Chrisitian 'fine tuning' argument for God and the post hoc way they argue "likelihood".

We have an incident, a highly unusual event of an airline crashing into a large government building - this is actually the conclusion, much the way the universe is the conclusion to the fine tuning argument. We already know it is true, so to speak.

Now if we post-engineer either scenario it suddenly seems highly unlikely. How could all the laws of nature coelesce into something as complex as the universe when their were so many opportunities for it to go wrong? Similarly how could an undertrained pilot fly a complex plane so close to the ground and hit it perfectly right where he wanted?

What is rarely considered in these post hoc examinations however is for starters we don't know they way it ended up playiing out was even the pilots plan.He could've stuffed up on many plevels but still got a 'result'. Maybe he hadn't even planned to hit the Pentagon, but rather the White Housde; maybe he hadn't planned on hitting the outer ring but wanted to hit right in the centre ( I seem to remember one of the experts saying that would've caused more damage: maybe he hadn't planned to bank so hard in his final aiming at the Pentagon; maybe he hadn't planned to come in so low (he did clip lights on the freeway after all, that alone could have bought him undone).

Anyway, I'm hoping you are getting the picture. Like the universe, it only seems highly unlikely after the event, because it can only appear perfect once you have witnessed the result.

One wonders what you might be saying after the event if say the plane had've hit the bridge and exploded on impact never actuaolly hitting the Pentagon. Does that mean that the claim Hanjour was the pilot is suddenly a lot more plausible? seems to me on your account it would.

 

[TigerForce]

I wonder why the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial keeps procrastinating.

What are your thoughts on this continuous delay Patsy?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/september-11-attacks/9493267/911-trial-may-not-begin-for-another-four-years.html

 

[tigertim]

I don't know if he'd flown a plane larger than a Cessna. I assumed a pilots licence for a 737 meant he had but it was an assumption.

Had he not flown a 737 before, or only Cessnas?

 

[Tigers of Old]

How does it go? The truth is stranger than fiction?

That was funny. I liked the bit inferring that the Pentagon was hit to cover up Rumsfelds $2.4 trillion loss......which he,d announced the day before! That's some bad organising Donald!

Of course we really do know the truth about 911.

Enjoyed this post tim. A compressed 5 minute video of absurd conspiracy theories would be a lot funnier.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

But when you think about it you are doing this opposite of that in the case of the Pentagon incident. I hate to revive the ID/Christianity comparisons but it does remind me of the Chrisitian 'fine tuning' argument for God and the post hoc way they argue "likelihood".

We have an incident, a highly unusual event of an airline crashing into a large government building - this is actually the conclusion, much the way the universe is the conclusion to the fine tuning argument. We already know it is true, so to speak.

Now if we post-engineer either scenario it suddenly seems highly unlikely. How could all the laws of nature coelesce into something as complex as the universe when their were so many opportunities for it to go wrong? Similarly how could an undertrained pilot fly a complex plane so close to the ground and hit it perfectly right where he wanted?

What is rarely considered in these post hoc examinations however is for starters we don't know they way it ended up playiing out was even the pilots plan.He could've stuffed up on many plevels but still got a 'result'. Maybe he hadn't even planned to hit the Pentagon, but rather the White Housde; maybe he hadn't planned on hitting the outer ring but wanted to hit right in the centre ( I seem to remember one of the experts saying that would've caused more damage: maybe he hadn't planned to bank so hard in his final aiming at the Pentagon; maybe he hadn't planned to come in so low (he did clip lights on the freeway after all, that alone could have bought him undone).

Anyway, I'm hoping you are getting the picture. Like the universe, it only seems highly unlikely after the event, because it can only appear perfect once you have witnessed the result.

One wonders what you might be saying after the event if say the plane had've hit the bridge and exploded on impact never actuaolly hitting the Pentagon. Does that mean that the claim Hanjour was the pilot is suddenly a lot more plausible? seems to me on your account it would.

I was going to post something along similar lines in a far less eloquent way. It is an important point and the fine-tuning analogy is spot on.

 

[tigertim]

How does it go? The truth is stranger than fiction?

Enjoyed this post tim. A compressed 5 minute video of absurd conspiracy theories would be a lot funnier.

If only it were true Tooheys.

 

[Disco08]

But when you think about it you are doing this opposite of that in the case of the Pentagon incident. I hate to revive the ID/Christianity comparisons but it does remind me of the Chrisitian 'fine tuning' argument for God and the post hoc way they argue "likelihood".

We have an incident, a highly unusual event of an airline crashing into a large government building - this is actually the conclusion, much the way the universe is the conclusion to the fine tuning argument. We already know it is true, so to speak.

Now if we post-engineer either scenario it suddenly seems highly unlikely. How could all the laws of nature coelesce into something as complex as the universe when their were so many opportunities for it to go wrong? Similarly how could an undertrained pilot fly a complex plane so close to the ground and hit it perfectly right where he wanted?

What is rarely considered in these post hoc examinations however is for starters we don't know they way it ended up playiing out was even the pilots plan.He could've stuffed up on many plevels but still got a 'result'. Maybe he hadn't even planned to hit the Pentagon, but rather the White Housde; maybe he hadn't planned on hitting the outer ring but wanted to hit right in the centre ( I seem to remember one of the experts saying that would've caused more damage: maybe he hadn't planned to bank so hard in his final aiming at the Pentagon; maybe he hadn't planned to come in so low (he did clip lights on the freeway after all, that alone could have bought him undone).

Anyway, I'm hoping you are getting the picture. Like the universe, it only seems highly unlikely after the event, because it can only appear perfect once you have witnessed the result.

One wonders what you might be saying after the event if say the plane had've hit the bridge and exploded on impact never actuaolly hitting the Pentagon. Does that mean that the claim Hanjour was the pilot is suddenly a lot more plausible? seems to me on your account it would.

And the fact that the door was never logged as open during the entire flight?

If he'd flown a straight line into the Penatagon without the Top Gun manouvres I doubt there'd be any conjecture. However when you get a group of people all experienced in the field saying what apparently occured is next to impossible I think that's worth taking note of. Do we want real answers or are we happy to just put everything down to the wierdness of the universe? Why not just investigate it properly and be done with it? Maybe find out if the CVR on the plane was certainly a solid state model and if so find out where the *smile* it is. Then check out all the footage from the multitude of cameras in the area. Then interview the air traffic controllers whose interview tapes were destroyed on 9/11. That should at least give us something to go on. As it is, without those things all we have is pure conjecture.

I do underastand your point, but I put it to you that if you'd said to anyone with any idea of aviation that a questionable pilot with no hours flying any large aircraft flew the route Hanjour is alleged to have flown they'd think it was just as unlikely before it happened as they do in the aftermath. This isn't something you can fluke. According to these experts it takes extreme skill.

 

[Baloo]

The counter quotes for Flight 77

...In Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack, Eric Hufschmid says: "I would say it is absurd to believe an inexperienced pilot could fly such a plane a few millimeters above the ground. The flight path of this plane is enough to convince me that no human was in control of it. I think only a computer is capable of flying an airplane in such a tricky manner. If terrorists flew the plane, they would qualify as the World's Greatest Pilots since they did tricks with a commercial aircraft that I doubt the best Air Force pilots could do."
Ralph Omholt's "skydrifter" website claims: "No pilot will claim to be able to hit such a spot as the Pentagon base under any conditions in a 757 doing 300 knots. As to the clearly alleged amateur pilots: IMPOSSIBLE!"

"Impossible"? "No pilot will claim...?" Well, we did not have any difficulty finding pilots who disagreed. Ronald D. Bull, a retired United Airlines pilot, in Jupiter, Florida, told The New American, "It's not that difficult, and certainly not impossible," noting that it's much easier to crash intentionally into a target than to make a controlled landing. "If you're doing a suicide run, like these guys were doing, you'd just keep the nose down and push like the devil," says Capt. Bull, who flew 727s, 747s, 757s, and 767s for many years, internationally and domestically, including into the Washington, D.C., airports.

George Williams of Waxhaw, North Carolina, piloted 707s, 727s, DC-10s, and 747s for Northwest Airlines for 38 years. "I don't see any merit to those arguments whatsoever," Capt. Williams told us. "The Pentagon is a pretty big target and I'd say hitting it was a fairly easy thing to do."

According to 9/11 "investigator" *smile* Eastman, whose wild theories are posted on the American Patriot Friends Network and many other Internet sites, Flight 77 was part of an elaborate deception in which a remote-controlled F-16 "killer jet" actually hit the Pentagon, while the 757 swooped over the Pentagon and landed at Reagan National Airport! "With its engines off," says Eastman, Flight 77 silently "coasted" in to the airport and blended in with other air traffic. "There would be few people to see Flight 77 come through, and those who did would doubtless assume that it was yet another routine flight over Reagan National," he claims.

"That's so far-fetched it's beyond ludicrous," says Capt. Williams. "I've flown into Reagan [National Airport] hundreds of times and you can't just sneak in and 'blend in' without air traffic controllers knowing about it and without other pilots and witnesses noticing."

Besides, as Capt. Ron Bull points out, the Eastman scenario would require piloting skills far beyond what it would take to hit the Pentagon. "I've flown into Reagan National many times and my first trip in a 757 was no picnic," he says. "I had to really work at it, and that was after 25 years of experience flying big jets. Any scenario that has the 757 [Flight 77] taking a flight path over the Pentagon and landing at National unobserved is proposing something that is far more difficult � and far more difficult to believe � than flying the plane into the Pentagon. It's just not credible."

As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn.
It's true there's only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough.

"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."

"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."

"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."

That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060916205041/http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/index_np.html/

In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did.

Other tidbits about their true flight experience can be found on the same page. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Flight_School_Dropouts

 

[KnightersRevenge]

And the fact that the door was never logged as open during the entire flight?

If he'd flown a straight line into the Penatagon without the Top Gun manouvres I doubt there'd be any conjecture. However when you get a group of people all experienced in the field saying what apparently occured is next to impossible I think that's worth taking note of. Do we want real answers or are we happy to just put everything down to the wierdness of the universe? Why not just investigate it properly and be done with it? Maybe find out if the CVR on the plane was certainly a solid state model and if so find out where the *smile* it is. Then check out all the footage from the multitude of cameras in the area. Then interview the air traffic controllers whose interview tapes were destroyed on 9/11. That should at least give us something to go on. As it is, without those things all we have is pure conjecture.

I do underastand your point, but I put it to you that if you'd said to anyone with any idea of aviation that a questionable pilot with no hours flying any large aircraft flew the route Hanjour is alleged to have flown they'd think it was just as unlikely before it happened as they do in the aftermath. This isn't something you can fluke. According to these experts it takes extreme skill.

I am not sure why you think "we" come into the Pentagon's calculations in terms of transparency. I would be very surprised if the Pentagon don't know the answers to many of your questions, I just don't expect them to divulge them. That is not the business they are in. You nor I ought to expect them to, IMO.

 

[evo]

However when you get a group of people all experienced in the field saying what apparently occurred is next to impossible I think that's worth taking note of.

Well maybe. But on the other hand you didn't post a large number of expert counter-quotes such as Baloo has just kindly provide to allow the reader on the fence to make a more informed decision.
I hope you will pardon me if i suspect your search for real answers is somewhat skewed towards a preconceived outcome at times.

Do we want real answers or are we happy to just put everything down to the wierdness of the universe?

I wasn't arguing for weirdness of the universe, but rather point ing that when you post-engineer complex events it may often not be the best way to get to a truth of the matter.It is an epistemalogical argument.

I'm sure there is a name ( or theory) for this post hoc type investigations but I'm not sure what it is. Maybe something for me to search for on the weekend. I'm kinda intrigued with it now.

Why not just investigate it properly and be done with it?

Dont you get sick of asking us this in every post? I've already said fine have another investigation. It is no skin off my nose. i'm just skeptical anoither government lead investifgation would get any closer to the truth than the first one did.

I do underastand your point, but I put it to you that if you'd said to anyone with any idea of aviation that a questionable pilot with no hours flying any large aircraft flew the route Hanjour is alleged to have flown they'd think it was just as unlikely before it happened as they do in the aftermath. This isn't something you can fluke. According to these experts it takes extreme skill.

Cool. BUt as you've already acknowledged, a hijacked airline hit the Pentagon, we agree on this.

so whether it was Hanjour or someone else, its not that interesting to me. I guess it would be cool to know if it was someone else, who was it, but I must admit I'm not losing a lot of sleep over it.

Getting truthful admissions from the U.S government is not that important to me. While it would be really interesting in a real-life spy movie sorta way, I'm not really dying to get the whole picture as most troofers. Like the old saying goes, how do you know when a politician is lying? It is when he opens his mouth.Learning that there has been cover ups and acts of incompetence is not such a revelation - I've come to expect that from governments, particularly the U.S government over the years. However that doesn't mean I'm gonna accept 3 large skyscrapers were prewired for demolition, a missile was fired at the pentagon, while the actual hijacked plane was taken somewhere else and the passengers slaughtered.

I guess that is what has often intrigued me about many conspiracy trheorists. They profess to be such great anti government, individualist freethinkers but then are constanly seeking reassurance from the government that they aren't being duped.

 

[Rosy]

There seems to be an assumption that a thorough enquiry wasn't held. I'd be surprised if it's just been swept under the carpet and the powers to be haven't got answers. I wouldn't expect details of a matter of such national security, and how it was allowed to happen, to be made public. It could be risky and it's probably very embarrassing.

I reckon a new enquiry would be a dog's breakfast. Look at the different he said/she said points of view. it was a bird..it was a plane....no it was super missile...it couldn't happen...it did happen...nobody could fly like that...they did fly like that...there were no windows...they had pink curtains on them. There's no doubt in my mind that conspiracy theorists wouldn't be happy if the hearing didn't support their beliefs and they'd call it a conspiracy and a cover-up. They show an absolute inability to consider things that don't fit their mould. A complete lack of balance in films like Loose Change...selected editing, lop-sided opinions. I couldn't care less if there was an enquiry or not. I wouldn't expect one.