Why is it that ALL occurances on 9/11 is an anomoly?

[angstlessk]

The chances of TWO steel towers falling because of being hit by airplanes about 1 in a million? AND it was sold ONE month earlier? (Silverstein)
Why did the airplane that hit the Pentagon disintegrate?
Why did the airplane that hit the ground in PA disintegrate?
Why did WTC 7 fall as if it was brought down by controlled demolition?

It seems to me there should be at least ONE NORMAL OCCURANCE on that day? An airplane with SEATS LEFT INTACT? Even that plane that took a nose dive into the swamps of Florida had SOME SEMBLANCE OF AN AIRPLANE CRASH! In fact...the Shuttle that burned up on its reentry had more debris than the PA Airplane OR the Pentagon one?

You people all seem to pick some little part and argue with scientific expertise..but it is the accumulation of anomalies which I find AMAZING!

Edit: rather than preserve the forensic evidence they whisked it out of the country ...another anomaly! There are so many HOW CAN ANYONE NOT BELIEVE A CONSPIRACY THEORY,..BESIDES THE 'OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY'?

[hack89]

1. Well, how many steel towers have ever been hit by airplanes

traveling at high speeds? Two perhaps? Kind of hard to define normal for such a rare happening. Perhaps collapse is normal - you certainly don't hear the engineering world in an uproar about it so it would appear they don't think its abnormal.


WTC 7 fell asymmetrically in three distinct phases - can you show where that is a standard CD technique?

Start on page 25

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

[angstlessk]

2. NOTHING WAS NORMAL ON 9/11..NO ONE SINGLE SEAT

LUGGAGE OR BODY PART WORTH IDENTIFYING SURVIVED IN 4 AIR PLANE CRASHES.,..THE CHANCES OF THAT HAPPENING USING 19 HIJACKERS WITH BOX CUTTER ARE ABOUT 1 IN BILLIONS OF BILLIONS...GET OVER IT

THE CHANCES OF BOTH TOWERS FALLING WAS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE.,.AND WTC7 WAS IMPOSSIBLE

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spillthebeans]

4. The hijackers were let in by the CIA....

so eveything is fine

Michael Springmann, head US consular official in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, later claims that during this period he is “repeatedly told to issue visas to unqualified applicants.” He turns them down, but is repeatedly overruled by superiors. Springmann loudly complains to numerous government offices, but no action is taken. He is fired and his files on these applicants are destroyed. He later learns that recruits from many countries fighting for bin Laden against Russia in Afghanistan were funneled through the Jeddah office to get visas to come to the US, where the recruits would travel to train for the Afghan war. According to Springmann, the Jeddah consulate was run by the CIA and staffed almost entirely by intelligence agents. This visa system may have continued at least through 9/11, and 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers received their visas through Jeddah, possibly as part of this program.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a052102fraudvisas

[William Seger]

17. Which hijackers?

The real hijackers of the real planes, the fake hijackers of the real plane, the real hijackers of the fake planes, or the fake hijackers of the fake planes?

[spillthebeans]

20. the hijackers that were part of able danger and were shown on tv

shortly after/during the attacks



they lived together with their FBI handlers

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A former landlord of two of the September 11 hijackers was an FBI informant at the time, knowledgeable sources confirm to CNN.
The two hijackers, Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, lived in San Diego in the fall of 2000 and were taken in by a Muslim man after he met them at a local Islamic center. The landlord had been an informant for the FBI, supplying information about the Islamic terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/11/ar911.hijackers.landlord/



It's called creating a legend,
it's not important if the hijackers are actually on board or even if one of them is late because he had to much partying that would be no problem.

What actually happened on the planes is difficult to say, it's not even important that all of them even existed, only that records of them exist.

Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained at U.S. Bases

The Pentagon has turned over military records on five men to the FBI



By George Wehrfritz, Catharine Skipp and John Barry

NEWSWEEK



Sept. 15 — U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes that were used in Tuesday’s terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s.



THREE OF THE alleged hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla.—known as the “Cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation,” according to a high-ranking U.S. Navy source.



Another of the alleged hijackers may have been trained in strategy and tactics at the Air War College in Montgomery, Ala., said another high-ranking Pentagon official. The fifth man may have received language instruction at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Both were former Saudi Air Force pilots who had come to the United States, according to the Pentagon source.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/010915newsweek

[petgoat]

5. WTC7 fell symmetrically into its own footprint.

you certainly don't hear the engineering world in an uproar about it

For three years you didn't hear the engineering world in an uproar about the zipper theory
even though it was ludicrous on its face because it required that the truss clips at the
perimeters were so weak that they unzipped, but the truss clips at the core were so
strong they tore down the core when the floors collapsed.

And then when the zipper theory was discredited by NIST not one person, not even the
originators of the zipper theory, would defend it.

Looks like the engineering world is just plain silent because almost nobody is qualified
by experience to comment on an unexpected happening with the largest building in the
world--particularly when they can't see the blueprints or the photos and the steel has
been destroyed.

The amazing thing to me is that they could get anybody willing to sign off on the NIST
report. But the world is full of whores.

[hack89]

7. No it did not

it was a three phase collapse that started with a vertical cleaving of one end of the building. You need to look at more than that single internet video clip.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

[mirandapriestly]

10. If it had had the "controlled" aspects of a "controlled demolition"

it would have, but it was just a "demolition".

[rman]

13. I'd say it was controlled in that

there was control over the when and how of the demolitions.
Of course it was made to look like it was not a regular CD.

[hack89]

15. So then you agree that it looked like a non-controlled collapse

and it takes evidence other then the video clips to determine that it was really controlled demolition?

[mirandapriestly]

32. I meant no extra safety precautions to hold in walls, etc...

Like wrapping the explosives, taking the glass out first, etc...

[petgoat]

33. It was a symmetrical collapse: straight down into its own

footprint. You can't get any more symmetrical than that.

[hack89]

44. How does symmetrical = fall in own foot print?

It is clear that one end collapsed before the other - clearly not symmetrical.

You refuse to look at the evidence so I guess there is no point in discussing it any further with you. At least you are straight forward in your faith.

[petgoat]

46. one end did not collapse before the other

They collapsed at the same time. There was a kink from the middle collapsing
first. That's how it's done in CD. Because of the unconventional framing, the
"middle" was not exactly on the middle.

[William Seger]

52. Right

Because of some very "unconventional framing" the middle was on one end.

[hack89]

53. Start on page 25

You need to look at more than that single internet video you love.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

[mmmlink]

99. NIST document

Better look at page 11 again, they haven't fixed the picture of the built up columns. Too bad we trust the government too much.

[hack89]

113. Care to elaborate?

or are we simply to accept your somewhat cryptic statement. A link would be fine.

[mmmlink]

120. Elaboration...

Sure, if you look at the picture on the left of the 7th floor plan, it shows nine built up columns (in red), only they are 180 degrees out of sync with the columns in the picture. This may not seem important to most but on page 4 of the document, NIST makes a point that it is committed to putting accuracy, quality, and completeness ahead of schedule, taking whatever time is required to do the job right. Kind of funny that a key picture showing built up columns is incorrect (I believe it has been corrected in later editions).

[William Seger]

8. Again and again

Eager: This might have been what happened...

Engineers: Sounds plausible, but needs to be studied...

CTers: NO! It was EXPLOSIVES I tell ya! We KNOW it was EXPLOSIVES so the "zipper theory" CAN'T be right! It defies the LAWZ O' FIZZICS! Everything "they" say is a LIE!

NIST: Okay, we've studied the blueprints and the videos; here's what we think happened...

CTers: AHA! The "zipper theory" is ABSURD! We were RIGHT! So it musta been EXPLOSIVES!

petgoat: For three years you didn't hear the engineering world in an uproar about the zipper theory even though it was ludicrous on its face... etc. etc. etc. <insert more confirmation bias, willful ignorance, and plain ol' bullshit here> <repeat at every opportunity>

William Seger: :eyes:

[petgoat]

34. It's easy to win an argument in your own mind when you write the

other guy's lines, isn't it?

You are inappropriately mixing issues. Do you drive to work or eat a bag lunch? Which?

The patent absurdity of the zipper theory is a separate question from explosives. Try dealing
with the issues.

The zipper theory says that the perimeter truss clips were so weak they unzipped all by themselves,
all the way around even the undamaged parts of the building. But the core clips were so freaking
strong they pulled down the 47 14" X 36" steel core columns when the floors fell.

That's what's absurd.

[William Seger]

45. Pot, kettle

> The zipper theory says that the perimeter truss clips were so weak they unzipped all by themselves,
all the way around even the undamaged parts of the building. But the core clips were so freaking
strong they pulled down the 47 14" X 36" steel core columns when the floors fell.

"All by themselves?" And you're still claiming the "zipper theory" hypothesized that the core columns were pulled in? As I pointed out to you (at least twice), the "zipper theory" hypothesized that the collapse started when a floor pancaked into the floor below. Here's the link to Eagar's original paper: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
Please quote the part about the core columns being pulled in, 'cause I can't find it. Is it easier to win arguments in your own mind when you put words in Eagar's mouth?

> You are inappropriately mixing issues. Do you drive to work or eat a bag lunch? Which? The patent absurdity of the zipper theory is a separate question from explosives. Try dealing with the issues.

Oh, but I am. There is not a single detail of the "official story" of what happened at WTC that CTers haven't denied, based almost exclusively on their own beliefs that explosives were used to bring down the building, so any other explanation couldn't be true. And you still haven't commented on the fact that NIST dismissed the "zipper theory" after they actually studied it, which is something not a single CTer has ever done.

[petgoat]

48. kot, pettle

you're still claiming the "zipper theory" hypothesized that
the core columns were pulled in?

"Pulled down" is not "pulled in," but why you'd mischaracterize
it I can't fathom. No I'm not putting words in Eagar's mouth.
He claimed to explain the collapse. The core collapsed too.
Therefore Eagar's theory must explain the collapse. Therefore
under Dr. Eagar's theory the core clips must have pulled the columns
down, unless he has offered another explanation, and I don't believe
he has.

There is not a single detail of the "official story" of what
happened at WTC that CTers haven't denied

That's ridiculous. Many of the features of the collapse have
been stipulated to.

based almost exclusively on their own beliefs that explosives
were used to bring down the building

That's ridiculous. Many skeptics who point out the shortcomings
of the official story are agnostic on the explosives. Where did
you get the power to read minds over the internet?

NIST dismissed the "zipper theory" after they actually studied it,
which is something not a single CTer has ever done.

Huh? You never heard of Jim Hoffman?

http://911research.wtc7.net/

You might well to restrict yourself for a while to statements you can
support through links.

[William Seger]

51. Please don't pull down your zipper

[petgoat]

55. It's not my zipper, it's Dr. Eagar's. And the point is that for the

three years that patently absurd theory held sway, not one structural engineer
could be found to argue against it.

And when NIST was forced to deal with its obvious absurdities, not one structural
engineer could be found to defend it. There appears to be a rather powerful
reluctance of structural engineers to comment on government business that's none
of their business.

And that's not a dead horse. It's an important issue in public affairs.

[sagesnow]

126. This video of WTC2 looks..

and sounds like controlled demolition to me.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5860825099435530591

[treestar]

108. How many steel towers have bend or broken because they were

weakened to the point where they no longer had the necessary weight-bearing capacity?

[sagesnow]

127. Video: Larry Silverstein says they "decided to pull it" (WTC7)

Video: Larry Silverstein says they "decided to pull it" (WTC7)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4142375757336204440&q=world+trade+center+7&hl=en

It looks as if Building 7 collapses into an area no wider than 70 feet from it's base- pretty much "into it's footprint". Imagine the damage to surrounding buildings if the WTC buildings had toppled sideways.

Larry Silverstein bought the World Trade Center buildings a few months before 9/11 and made a small fortune on insurance he providentially took out for insurance against terrorist attacks.

From this Wikipedia entry about Silverstein, "Silverstein's spokesperson, Dara McQuillan, said in September 2005 that by "pull it" Silverstein was referring to the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building, and confirming that they should evacuate the premises.<15><16>"

The last article I could find, Silverstein was awarded double the amount the insurance company wanted to pay out, because his lawyers argued two separate planes constitute two separate terrorist attacks.

"Dispute with Insurers
As a private developer with a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center, Silverstein insured the property. Following the September 11 2001 attacks, he sought payment for the destruction of the towers as two incidents. The two dozen insurers held that it was one incident. If it were considered to be a single incident, the payout would be $3.55 billion and if it were two incidents, it would be $7.1 billion. Silverstein sued the insurers.

On December 6 2004, a federal jury ruled in favor of Silverstein giving him an additional $1.1 billion from nine insurers, declaring it to be two "occurrences". <7> However, in a previous trial, a different federal jury delivered a mixed verdict which highly favored insurers on April 29 2004 <8>

At dispute in the trial were interpretation of standard forms used in the application for property insurance and when particular insurers saw which documents.<9>

In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers <10>. He plans to use some or all of the settlement to rebuild. <11>"
http://www.answers.com/topic/larry-silverstein

Larry Silverstein is one coincidentally lucky man.

[dailykoff]

6. No forensic evidence is needed

to prove that the towers were demolished with explosives. The photography alone, which shows no evidence of compression failure of the structural members, is more than sufficient.

[William Seger]

9. That reminds me...

I forgot to grant the Factless Fosdick Award to a deserving Internet Detective this month...

[mirandapriestly]

11. You should be able to grant it since

you must have it in your posession from having it granted to you.

PS: I think you need just one more "anti-Bush" avatar or slogan on your posts, although the overkill might make some suspicious.

[William Seger]

18. How about if I use

... the mug shot from my New World Order Disinformation Agent badge? Sorry, that's against regulations. :eyes:

[Nozebro]

21. U R Soitenly Right (sans a wing).Exaggeration is often a dead give-away

As in: "Yes, of course boosh did it. He thought it up and plotted the whole thing while riding one of his hobby horses down there on his wrench in Crawfish. It's the main reason why he wanted to be President; so he could carry out his wish to see the WTC destroyed, along with a few thousand Murikans".

They just don't seem able to resist giving themselves away. Some, more than others.

[dailykoff]

23. I'm afraid those are the facts

and they're pretty straightforward: the photographic evidence shows clearly that the Trade Center towers did not fail in the manner insinuated by the NIST.

I say "insinuated" because the NIST reports do not actually explain how both towers collapsed to the ground, or at least hadn't by last August.

[William Seger]

26. Watch this video, then

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546

Thank you very much, but I can see for myself what that video "shows clearly" whether or not you and petgoat pretend you can't.

No, the NIST report did not go into why the collapse continued after it got started. But other experts have, if you're really curious about it. Physicists don't yammer about the LAWZ O' FIZZICS; they argue in the language of physics, which is math. So far, the only CTer who has attempted a mathematical challenge to that explanation is Gordon Ross, and that debate isn't going so well for Ross, if you've been keeping up with it.

[dailykoff]

27. Thanks, I might. But you're missing the point.

Engineering is a practical science, and all the math in the world can't change the facts on display in every photograph and video of the collapses and resulting debris, including the NIST's.

[petgoat]

35. Nobody's yammering about the LAWZ O' FIZZICS except you.

I guess you never heard of Dr. Judy Wood or Dr. Steven Jones.

[William Seger]

40. Mr. Thermite and Ms. Death Star?

Sure I've heard of 'em; and so sorry to hear they've split up. To the best of my knowledge, Jones has never published any mathematical analysis of the collapse. He begins his famous paper by simply claiming that it's easy to make buildings fall over like trees, and that's why you need to call in a demolition expert if you want them to fall straight down. When BYU accounced that they were suspending Jones pending scientific analysis of his paper, I just have to guess that was a particular point the structural engineering department wanted to discuss with him, since you don't need to be a physics professor or a structural engineer to understand why that isn't true. Now, Wood did publish a paper showing a calculation of the collapse time, and the immediate response was, why is someone who doesn't know about the conservation of momentum (or at least, how to apply it to real-world situations) teaching an engineering course? (That question has now been made moot.)

But yes, yammering about the LAWZ O' FIZZICS is precisely what CTers constantly do to convince credulous people that the collapse was impossible.

[petgoat]

41. Your characterization of Dr. Jones's paper leads me to

believe you have never read it.

Please provide your source for the straw man characterization you cite so
that we may all know to avoid it.

Dr. Jones only briefly touches on the symmetry of the collapse on p 4 and then
does not discuss symmetry until p. 20.

You then engage in a lot of baseless speculation about the internal politics
at BYU. Was any analysis of Dr. Jones's paper ever made public? Was his
paper ever refuted by anybody?

And don't go citing the letters by Dr. Firmage and Dr. Miller 'cause they're
ignorant, silly, and embarrassing.

And how has Dr. Wood's billiard ball analysis been made moot?

You seem to be long on opinion and attitude, and short on knowledge and
facts.

[William Seger]

49. Here ya go...

http://wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7_051122.html

The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute {favored by the Law of Increasing Entropy}. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first…

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

> And don't go citing the letters by Dr. Firmage and Dr. Miller 'cause they're ignorant, silly, and embarrassing.

Words fail me, so I'll go for the smiley :rofl:

> And how has Dr. Wood's billiard ball analysis been made moot?

You misunderstood: the issue of the billiard ball analysis was made moot by being too damn silly to take seriously, but what I said was, the question of why Wood is teaching an engineering class has been made moot.

> You seem to be long on opinion and attitude, and short on knowledge and facts.

Sez you. :-)

[petgoat]

54. That quote from p. 14 hardly qualifies as the opening to the paper.

Words fail me

I've noticed that.

I'll go for the smiley

It's probably more meaningful to you than to anyone else.

Have you read Dr. Firmage's criticism of Jones? Firmage's letter is based
on reading the SUMMARY of the FEMA/ASCE report (he never even read the report!)
and he apparently never heard of the NIST report.

I repeat. Dr. Firmage's letter is silly, ignorant, and embarrassing.

the billiard ball analysis was made moot by being too damn silly to take
seriously

Ah, so silly that no one need refute it?

Am I to suppose you employed smileys to such powerful effect in college term papers too?

[William Seger]

57. You're right

It wasn't at the beginning of the paper. :eyes: Um, any other comments?

> Ah, so silly that no one need refute it?

I guess it depends on who you're talking to, but just for you, I'll refute it: That "analysis" was based on the premise that when a floor fell onto another, it would come to a stop, then the two floors would start falling, starting again with a velocity of 0, then when they hit the next floor, they would come to a stop, then the three would start falling, again starting with a velocity of 0. How many mechanical engineers are there in the world who have never heard of the conservation of momentum?

> Am I to suppose you employed smileys to such powerful effect in college term papers too?

That woulda been cool, but we didn't have smileys when I was in college. In fact, we were still using slide rules. But anyway, I'm not sure what a college term paper has to do with playing your debating game. :rofl:

[Make7]

56. For future reference,...

... when quoting a source that uses brackets - [ ] - you should change them to parenthesis before posting. The DU software uses brackets to interpret HTML, which means the text in brackets will disappear and might also cause some unintended HTML coding to occur.

If you see this in time, you might still have a chance to edit your post.

- Make7

[mmmlink]

121. This video makes much more sense...

On the collapses...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3562292537850683363&q

[rman]

12. How could the hijackers do what they supposedly did,

while being watched by intel agencies?

Why were the hijacked planes not intercepted?

Why were there multiple military and intel exercises going on on 9/11, some of which were playing out the scenario that was taking place in reality? Same thing with London 7/7.

Why did the govt claim they could not have know, in spite of receiving many warnings?

Why did the govt obstruct the formation of a commission to investigate 9/11?

What's with all the Bush family members being involved one way or another?

What's with the power-downs and security stand-downs in the WTC shortly before 9/11?

[canetoad]

14. O William, william, william

Grown ups generally do not defend their position by falling back on discussion terminating cliches like 'Factless Fosdick Award'.

angstlessk raised some good points in the OP. Now I am sure they have been covered before in the history of this board, but come on man, cut a little slack for new enquirers. Then tell me what the odds are that:
*Four planes crashed on one morning, and.....
*Not one intact body was recovered, and......
*The best defence force in the world could not intercept, and......
*Barely qualified pilots carried out complex manoueveres (four times), and.....
*Two, not one but two, building collapsed in an indentical manner after suffering damage that was similar, but constructionally non-identical, and.....
*This combination of events contributed to a third building.......

William, I don't need to go on. The mathematical probibility is absolutely astronomical. Fine, if you want to believe that the planets aligned, the lay lines fell into place and 19 amateurs fell very bloody lucky on this morning. It's a hard fact of life son, but you are in the minority. You can choose to keep bleating like a scared goat or you can do some bloody good and do something positive about helping to OPEN discussion, instead of shutting it down. This of course, is just my humble opinion, others may disagree.

[William Seger]

16. Missed me

... and not just in where you put your reply. Beg your pardon, but the Factless Fosdick Award is not a cliche! As the originator, I claim all copyrights. And it's only been awarded once so far: to dailykoff, to whom my reply was directed, by the way, not to angstlessk. And I suspect dailykoff might recall the circumstances, but reminding him of it wasn't an attempt to "defend" any "position" except to point out that he was making more assertions that simply aren't factual.

But talking about planets aligning and lay lines falling into place (can they do that? I always thought they sorta, well, lay there), that's about what it would take to pull off the ridiculously (and unnecessarily) elaborate and risky scheme that's become the mainline conspiracy theory. If the "official story" of 19 Arab Muslim radicals hijacking 4 planes and managing to fly them into buildings with a success rate of 3 for 4 is soooooo hard to believe, then please tell me why CTers are constantly trying to pump up the story with exaggeration and bullshit such as "barely qualified pilots carried out complex manoueveres."

[petgoat]

36. "barely qualified pilots carried out complex manoueveres."

Hani Hanjour failed on three tries to rent a Cessna six weeks before 9/11.

But the 9/11 Commission would have us believe he took a 757 through a 270 degree turn
diving 7000 feet, arriving at the correct altitude, coordinates, and bearing to
fly just feet off the ground into the Pentagon wall only 75 feet high.

That's bullshit all right, but it's OCT bullshit.

[William Seger]

50. Have you seen...

... the video of the Dutch amateur in the simulator duplicating the "incredible" feat three times in a row? And Hanjour had training; this guy didn't. I can pro'lly find a link if you're interested, but I'm guessing you're not.

[William Seger]

19. How

> How could the hijackers do what they supposedly did, while being watched by intel agencies?

A damn good question. But I'm sorry, the "9/11 truth movement" is too busy investigating Death Star Beam Weapons at to moment to worry about that.

> Why were the hijacked planes not intercepted?

Another damn good question.

Why were there multiple military and intel exercises going on on 9/11, some of which were playing out the scenario that was taking place in reality? Same thing with London 7/7.

Actually, isn't it harder to explain why they would be doing that at the same time as the alleged scheduled conspiracy?

> Why did the govt claim they could not have know, in spite of receiving many warnings?

Finally, an easy one: BushCo lies, and everything BushCo does is all about politics, not solving problems.

> Why did the govt obstruct the formation of a commission to investigate 9/11?

Already answered, immediately above.

> What's with all the Bush family members being involved one way or another?

"Involved one way or another" is really too vague to answer, but Bush family members are "involved one way or another" in a lot of government-related stuff, so you could make "one way or another" relations out of just about anything that happens.

> What's with the power-downs and security stand-downs in the WTC shortly before 9/11?

Another fairly easy one; that apparently isn't true. It's covered pretty well on a lot of the debunking sites. (I suppose I could quote from those, but if you check it out yourself you might discover a lot of other stuff that doesn't withstand scrutiny.)

[Nozebro]

22. The old non-denial denial. If you could get frequent miles for each word

in a post, you'd be flying even higher, a what?

[William Seger]

25. Why do you say that?

Apparently, you haven't actually seen the New World Order Disinformation Agent contract, have you? But here you are making more unsubstantiated assertions... Anyway, I deny your denial of my non-denial denial.

[Nozebro]

29. Because I'm interested in the truth

" Why do you say that?"

[rman]

24. war games / exercises are a perfect cover

The organizations involved are in 'war mode', meaning more secrecy, making it easier for the perps to do their thing.

re "Bush family members being involved one way or another" - you'd know what i'm talking about if you'd have payed attention to posts in this forum for the past few months.

I'm not at all convinced the power-downs and security stand-downs have been debunked.

[William Seger]

28. "The organizations involved are in 'war mode'.."

Let me see if I'm following your logic here: There was supposedly a planned excercise that included hijacked planes. Then, there was a report of hijacked planes. So the people who were involved in the exercise were so "confused" about what they were supposed to do that they decided the best thing to do was ignore it? Or that they were supposed to demonstrate their lack of ability to respond? It's much easier for the perps to do their thing because "war mode" means everybody is asleep at the switch?

Seriously, this makes sense to you?

[DoYouEverWonder]

31. It created confusion

and when people sent the info up the chain fo command, it turned out the leaders at the top of chain were out to lunch.

[William Seger]

62. From the 9/11 report:

"In summary, NEADS received notice of the hijacking nine minutes before it struck the North Tower. That nine minutes' notice before the impact was the most the military would receive of any of the four hijackings."

Here's that notice:
FAA: Hi. Boston Center TMU, we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.
NEADS: Is this real-world or exercise?
FAA: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.

And the F-15s were scrambled a few minutes after the first tower was hit. It's true that NEADS still didn't know precisely where to vector them (that "3000 blips" you referred to was just the commercial air traffic that day), but it didn't matter; they were already too late. They didn't reach the Long Island area until 9:09, after the second tower had already been hit.

It makes a nice story that military drills interfered or "confused" the military response, but it doesn't fit the facts and it's pretty clear that the problems with the response can't be centered there. What's your next guess? Did the conspiracy planning assume that the ATC and FAA people didn't know how to deal with the problem effectively, or were those people in on it?

[John Q. Citizen]

63. Sounds like OJ to me. "If the blip don't fit, you must acquit!

So are you calling the reporter from Vanity Faire a liar?

[petgoat]

65. it doesn't fit the facts

Which facts would those be? NORAD's first report, second, report, or the third
in which the 9/11 Commission completely rewrote the timeline?

Actually, Paul Thompson says there have been 7 different timelines of NORAD's actions.

They didn't reach the Long Island area until 9:09

Right, because they were inexplicably sitting on the Otis tarmac for about six minutes
after the scramble order was issued, and they went into a holding pattern south of
Long Island when they did scramble, even though FAA tracked flight 175 all the way
into the building.

it's pretty clear that the problems with the response can't be centered there.

Right, case closed, nothing to see, move on. Kindly inform yourself with the facts
before acting as if you know.

Did the conspiracy planning assume that the ATC and FAA people didn't know how to
deal with the problem effectively

Of course they knew how to deal with the problem. It was in the book. Fighters were
scrambled a hundred times a year.

Like I said, they were disrupted by the presence of false blips on the radar screens.
According to the 9/11 Commission at one time FAA thought there were as many of 11 planes
hijacked.

FAA notified NORAD through the phone bridge well in advance of the Pentagon strike and
flight 93. But the 9/11 Commission chose to obfuscate this because their job one was to
cover up the facts that suggest Cheney knew about flight 77 coming into DC and he ordered
93 shot down before he was authorized to.

[William Seger]

71. Please try to focus on the topic

> Right, because they were inexplicably sitting on the Otis tarmac for about six minutes
after the scramble order was issued, and they went into a holding pattern south of
Long Island when they did scramble, even though FAA tracked flight 175 all the way
into the building...

"Inexplicably?" Okay, but the objective on this particular sub-thread was to try to explain how the drills interfered with the response.

> Of course they knew how to deal with the problem. It was in the book. Fighters were
scrambled a hundred times a year.

They were scrambled this time, too. You're supposed to be explaining to me how the drills interfered with that.

> Like I said, they were disrupted by the presence of false blips on the radar screens.
According to the 9/11 Commission at one time FAA thought there were as many of 11 planes
hijacked.

That's a non-sequitur unless you're claiming that the FAA was seeing false blips from a military drill?! I'm rather glad that I don't believe that.

> FAA notified NORAD through the phone bridge well in advance of the Pentagon strike and
flight 93.

And again, I think it's safe to say that by that time there was no "confusion" caused by any drill that this was a real hhjacking.

Look, quit trying to trick me into defending the ATCs, the FAA, or the military on 9/11, because that definitely ain't gonna happen. The specific point here is the claim that military drills on the same day is a suspicious clue that it was an "inside job." Got anything more to say on THAT topic?

[petgoat]

74. Explain how the drills interfered with the response

I already did. PTech had their interopabilty workstation hooked into both the
FAA and the NORAD radar systems and/or radar blip generators provided false echoes
to the radar beams.

False blips made dropping a dime on an off-course aircraft a chancy thing until you
have verified the problem by monitoring the radio transmissions. And when you did
have a verified hijacking suspect, how do you know which blip is the one that
represents that aircraft?

you're claiming that the FAA was seeing false blips from a military drill?

Exactemente! Go to the head of the class.

by that time {the time the FAA phone bridge was established at 8:50 a.m.}
there was no "confusion" caused by any drill

Okay, have it your way. Then it's entirely NORAD's fault that no jets were scrambled
to defend DC until 9:24, and no jets were scrambled ever to go after flight 93. Because
FAA told them about those flights well in advance.

The specific point here is the claim that military drills on the same day is a suspicious
clue that it was an "inside job."

Not necessarily. Could be just one guy let slip about the war games, and al Qaeda found out
about it, decided to exploit the "match" and it's all just a coverup. So why don't they
authorities come clean?

[William Seger]

76. No sale

Well, that was a waste of time, except for finding the possible source of your "information": The only claims of "false blips" on FAA radar on 9/11 are all on some 9/11 "truthiness" sites, and I also found that this has been debunked before. Yes, during a training exercise in which the FAA would be involved, false blips can be "injected" on their screens -- nothing surprising about that. But the military operations on 9/11 were just that, military operations. So, your claim amounts to saying that either there was a training exercise on 9/11 in which the FAA was involved (a "fact" which is presumably now being covered up), or that the military was seruptitiously injecting false blips on FAA radar without their knowledge (which is also presumably being covered up). So, unless you've got some evidence that escaped being covered up, looks like the end of the line for this one. G'night.

[petgoat]

78. Oh so your argument is "there's no proof of this covert op and

therefore there is no covert op."

Real smart reasoning.

[William Seger]

83. No "argument" necessary, since you apparently have no evidence

There is no proof of this "covert op," so there is no basis for asserting that it happened. See any difference between that and your misrepresentation? Is your "real smart reasoning" that there is no evidence, so it must have been covered up? I expect that you'll deny it when stated that way, even though this is certainly not the first time I've seen you using exactly that "real smart reasoning."

[petgoat]

86. Yes, the six war games were training exercises. Is there any

doubt about that? And no one can talk about top secret war games.

Your judgement that no one may speculate about possible covert operations
because there is no proof of them is as disingenous as the assertion with
respect to the electronic voting machines that because there is no proof
of electronic fraud, therefore there is no possibility of electronic fraud,
even though experts have testified that self-deleting software modules are
perfectlt practical that leave no proof.

[William Seger]

89. Jeez, what is it with you and dead horses?

Did the war games involve the FAA or did they not? "Training exercise" seems to be term used for operations that do, and that does NOT appear to be the term used for the military operations that day. But despite the terminology, if it did involve the FAA and there were "false blips" on FAA screens, there should be at least one FAA or military person saying that was the case. Got one? You claim that they were so top secret that nobody can even say that's what happened? Then how come there are apparently no restrictions on the military saying that THEY were engaged in "training exercises" and giving a lot of details about it, including that they had "false blips" on THEIR screens? No proof, no sale, no matter how much you flog the poor dead animal.

> Your judgment that no one may speculate about possible covert operations because there is no proof of them is as disingenous as...

Oh, bullshit. Far be it for me to try to stand between a "9/11 truth seeker" and his "speculations." You can speculate all you like; pawning them off as facts is a different matter. I speculate that the problem is, you have absolutely no ability to distinguish between speculations and facts -- and that's a speculation backed by some evidence.

[petgoat]

91. "there should be at least one FAA or military person saying "

I see. You think one person should come forward and violating his oath
not to speak of top secret matters.

And I suppose you believe that fighting with your boss is the key to a
promotion?

"Training exercise" seems to be term used for operations that do, and
that does NOT appear to be the term used for the military operations that day.

I take it you are inclined to accept uncritically the statements of military
personnel about the stand-down that took place that day, despite the fact that
they have presented seven different stories about their actions.

You can speculate all you like

Thank you. I see nothing wrong with speculation clearly labelled as such, whether
it involves space beam weaponry, lizard people, aircraft holograms. What I do
object to is people who think they have "The Truth!" and that goes for you, too.

pawning them off as facts

I know the difference. If you don't, tough.

you have absolutely no ability to distinguish between speculations and facts

Your rhetorical excess has eclipsed your powers of observation, I see.

[MervinFerd]

122. I think you figured him out.

"absolutely no ability to distinguish between speculations and facts"

Though I suspect Mr. Goat mostly just doesn't give a shit--so long as he can annoy the grownups.

Mr. Goat is pretty much a broken record. I suggest the stock response, "You are really quite tiresome, Mr. Goat."

Then go on to better things.

[DoYouEverWonder]

67. Then how did the military

manage to scramble that C130 that chased Flight 77 when it flew into the Pentagon, if they only had 10 minutes notice before each flight crashed and then get the same C130 to PA right when Flight 93 crashed?

[petgoat]

69. the same C130 to PA right when Flight 93 crashed

Aw come on, it wasn't right there. It was 17 miles away at the official crash time of 10:03.

But then it was right there at the seismographic time of 10:06 wasn't it?

[William Seger]

72. I don't believe the C-130 was "scrambled"

I believe it was in the air, AA77 flew by, the crew reported that, and they were ordered to follow. But please note that we started this sub-thread on the topic of how military drills that day were "suspicious." The reply was that the drills "confused" the response, and I'm asking for some evidence of that.

[vincent_vega_lives]

109. It didn't 'scramble' the C130

It was a ANG C130 that was diverted while in flight by Air Traffic Control.

** I suppose I should read the whole thread before posting.

[DoYouEverWonder]

110. And then the same plane was 'diverted'

to go out to PA. Pretty amazing C130. You would think with all the airpower up in the air that morning doing these exercises, they would have diverted something faster?

[hack89]

114. Actually,

it was ordered to continue on it's filed flight plan to it's base in the Midwest.

[petgoat]

37. Mike Ruppert says that as part of the war games,

false radar blips were injected into the system. PTech, a software company
financed by Yassin al Qadi, a terrorist financier whose assets were siezed
after 9/11, had for some time been working on interoperability software
that connected the FAA system to the NORAD system and reportedly had a
terminal hooked into both systems in the basement of the FAA. Another
possible vector for the insertion of false blips would be to set up
electronic stations that would echo pings back to the radar beam.

The radar inject thesis was confirmed to some degree in the August Vanity Fair
article by Michael Bronner. Based on discussions with his NORAD source, Major
Kevin Nasypany, Bronner claimed that the hijacked planes could not be located
because there were 3000 blips on NORAD's screens.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

This claim is directly opposite to the claims I'd heard up to then, which
was that the NORAD radars were oriented outward in a perimeter defense and
thus the domestic aircraft were invisible to them.

"War mode" wouldn't mean everyone was asleep at the switch. It would mean
nobody can talk about what happened, because the war games are classified.

[quicknthedead]

58. Those darn pesky drills!

Sure is interesting the same thing happened 7/7/05 in London.

These drills, done at the same time by guvmts (exact copies of the actual attacks, mind you), sure seem to get in the way of the terrorist attacks that occur.

One thing we know about this, though. It sure helps to foul up any response to the attack, and also clouds up the goings on of what really happened.

Those darn pesky drills!

Hmmm.....hey! Maybe they were done deliberately...maybe these were not coincidental!

What do you think?

(Please, shills; don't give us one of your standard disinfo lines again. You are not only boring, but a waste of time as well. So it goes with the intellectually dishonest.)

[John Q. Citizen]

61. I think it looks phoney as a three dollar bill. But it is effective, that's the up

side.

It's also the exact same excuse the Russian FBI used when their agents were caught placing explosives in apartment buildings "just like the "real" terrorists do."

Nothing to see here move along....

[Nozebro]

30. war games/exercises have been used for cover many, many times

and anyone that says otherwise either doesn't know much about current events and history or else they have "other reasons" which motivate their communication.

[SidDithers]

38. Again with the innuendo, Nosebro...

what "other reasons" are you talking about? Why are you implying that posters who disagree with you have a nefarious reason for their differnt opinion?

Since you can't know the motives of another poster, why not drop the speculation and concentrate on the content?

Sid

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nozebro]

42. Any innuendo is in your mind. There's certainly none in my post. But, I must

say you do have a rather quick finger on the trigger, siddithers. What's up with THAT?

[petgoat]

43. Life is tough outside the mutual admiration playpen of the

Pseudoscience board.

[Nozebro]

59. P.G. I've heard there is indeed a forum/group? here at DU where a mutual

admiration group gets together for really, really deep thinking and mindgames. Is that what you are referring to? If so, unless it wouldn't prudent, would you post the name of that "playpen". Thanks.

[petgoat]

64. Skepticism, Science and Pseudoscience Group

It's probably imprudent, but that's it.

They think 9/11 is a subject for musical comedy.

They think it's really clever to try to top each other's "brilliant
satires" a la "Elvis and Chewbaca piloted a Zeppelin into the Twin Towers".

I tried to engage some of them in real discussion of the science and
got banned from the group PDQ.

[John Q. Citizen]

66. How does one get banned from a group? Or is it a

special group?

[petgoat]

68. There was oblique reference in the group to the process

before it happened. There was a thread entitled something like
"Have we toyed with our friend long enough?" and then all of
a sudden I couldn't post any more.

I get this message:

The page you requested cannot be displayed.
The administrators of Democratic Underground have barred you
from participating in this forum.
The information you requested cannot be displayed because it
is no longer available. If you think this is in error, please
contact the site administrator.

If you have any questions, please contact the site administrator.
Click here to go back to previous page.

(Hope this doesn't get me banned from DU for posting correspondence
from the administrator)

Very weak egos over there. Juvenile humor. And little tolerance
for rationality.

[John Q. Citizen]

70. I visited and it seemed like they all thought they were extremely clever, and

better than other people.

I only saw it for a short while but it seemed very elitist, in a juvenile kinda frat house way. It asn't my cup of tea, so I haven't been back.

[petgoat]

79. elitist

It was fun to confront their smug certainty with some actual facts.

[greyl]

95. Like your being able to levitate and your sincere surprise

that there are anti-Semitic origins to some S/11 conspiracy theories?

edit:spling

[petgoat]

96. A couple of slips while fielding rabid attacks was not so bad.

I had no surprise about anti-semites taking advantage of 9/11 to push
their agenda. The illegitimate conflation of anti-semitism with ALL
9/11 skepticism was pervasive on that board, particularly in the continued
insistence that any explosives in the towers must have been planted by
"invisible jewish elves".

To make the shortcut from "exploiting the effects of gravity" to "controlling
gravity" at 2:00 a.m. is not such an egregious error.

[greyl]

101. You did fine.

petgoat: "What theories are based on anti-semitism?"

[spillthebeans]

102. Arabs are semites and Neocons calling them Islamofascist are proposing them n/t

[greyl]

106. I can't make sense of that. nt

[petgoat]

104. Asking for an enumeration is not denying they exist. nt

[greyl]

107. At best, it's feigned ignorance; never a positive thing during honest

discussions.

[petgoat]

111. Not feigned ignorance, simply an economical and neutral

request for more information.

When someone makes the broad statement that 9/11 theories
are rooted in anti-semitism, "Really, which ones?" is
about all the response it deserves.

[Nozebro]

75. P.G. & John Q.Citizen

Thanks for the information. I won't upset their comedy troupe by showing up at their playhouse anytime soon.

[Taxloss]

123. You'd have to pay the ticket price.

And you haven't. No star.

[Make7]

124. He would also still have to be a member of DU.

   
  Nozebro (1000+ posts)
Aug 15, 2006 - Nov 26, 2006


:cry: Make7

[greyl]

47. What evidence do you have, outside of your mind, that

Sid was involved with enforcing the DU rules on your pathetic post?

[John Q. Citizen]

60. greyl, where you been? Long time no see. What's new?

Is Sid a mod now?

And since when can anyone with a modicom of self respect as a rational skeptic/thinker equate punching a botton with "enforcing the rules" here on DU?

Pushing the button is like telling the teacher that someone is misbehaving. The teacher enforces the rules, not the person that told them.

I think, knowing you as I do, that possibly what you meant to write was:
'What evidence do you have, outside of your mind, that Sid was involved with pushing the alert button on your pathetic post?'

Was it you greyl?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

73. I bet it was those same spoilsports

who alerted on DemInDistress too.

[John Q. Citizen]

77. Who is DemInDistress? (It looks sort of familiar, but I can't quite place it)

[MervinFerd]

116. A little TOO cute, JohnQ? nt

[John Q. Citizen]

117. Only if you consider a legitimate question as too cute, MF. So who is it?

[greyl]

88. What's new?

You wouldn't believe me.

And since when can anyone ... equate punching a botton with "enforcing the rules" here on DU?

You'll have to ask someone who does that.
My words were: "was involved with enforcing the DU rules on your pathetic post"

Are you clear on what the phrase "was involved with" means?

[MervinFerd]

80. Hi! Greyl! Glad to see you arrived safely!

Hope your flight was uneventful.

I had a rotten trip, myself. Cancelled flight on the layover in Denver. Had to have you-know-who arrange a private jet.

[SidDithers]

82. Welcome back!...nt

Sid

[SidDithers]

81. I didn't even see that reply (was it yours?)...

so I certainly had nothing to do with the post being deleted.

Sid

[MervinFerd]

84. Because it proves the ABSENCE of a conspiracy.....

Jeeeeezus Pete!

You're the malicious, nasty NWO masters of all the Universe and New York City. You're going to create the meanest, most nasty, complicated, Conspiracy Crime in all World History.

SO...

Do you create an event in which ALL "occurances" are "anomolous" and lots of people will see right through your nasty deed.

OR

Do you create an event in which everything goes as expected? So that you don't get caught and shot by a firing squad.

Hmmmmmmm?

[petgoat]

85. Maybe a scheme of which only a lunatic could conceive

results in certain occurrances consistent with a scheme executed
by a lunatic?

[MervinFerd]

87. Or, maybe a scheme that only a FOOL would believe...

Or maybe an obnoxious, immature adolescent trying to annoy the grownups.

Not making any claims here about any -particular- individual.

[petgoat]

90. What is foolish about believing that ideologues completely

innocent of practical reality, who believe that Empire creates its own reality,
who are unable to change a flat tire on their cars, who have shown themselves
to be kleptomaniacal lunatics with respect to everything they have touched....

What is foolish about thinking such a bunch, fueled by cocaine and whiskey, might
create a slightly complicated and transparent scheme?

[MervinFerd]

92. Because they've fucked up everything else?

What's impossible is not that they could think of it, but that they could DO it.

[spillthebeans]

93. these people are just front man reading a script

I was reminded of a good documentary from 1995 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114512/

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7344181953466797353&q=spin


Watch it and tell me if someone opposing the military industrial complex has a chance of being elected

[MervinFerd]

94. Doens't matter. Whoever is running the show......

couldn't pull off a vastly complex opeeration in complete secrecy. Especially if they are the fools running the show in Iraq.

And, to get back to the point, IF -anyone- were planning a vast nasty conspiracy, they would make it look NATURAL. They wouldn't put in lots of "anomolus occurances".

[petgoat]

98. "a vastly complex opeeration in complete secrecy."

It wasn't in secrecy. There were warnings from 13 countries, remember? Le Figaro
caught the CIA and Prince Turki meeting with Osama in Dubai! You'd do far better to
argue that the alleged hijackers could not possibly have pulled their job off without
finding out--because they DID find out! The Mossad warned of 19 terrorists planning
something big, and they named names.

What is vastly complex about disrupting the air defense with war games and flying planes
into buildings, and maybe blowing up the WTC and maybe shooting a missile into the
Pentagon?

they would make it look NATURAL.

Maybe it was impossible to make it look natural, and so they buried the conspicuious
anomaly under so many other anomalies that it would be obscured. Maybe the guy who
calculated the explosives missed a couple of decimal points, or used a 1000X safety
factor. Or maybe he knew they were going to drop him down a mineshaft when he was
done and so he deliberately used too much explosives to try to queer the job.

[MervinFerd]

103. Mr. Goat, you are really tiresome.

This is completely stupid, and I think you must know it.

Go away.

[petgoat]

105. Glad to be of service. If you don't like it, go back to sleep. nt

[MervinFerd]

97. So? -Somebody's- running the show.

And they ain't doin' that gooda job at it.

But, returning to the point, -whoever- is in charge, if you are planning a Dastardly Deed you don't plan a bunch of "anomolous occurances". You make it look as normal as possible.

DUH!

[petgoat]

100. they've fucked up everything else?

And 9/11 was fucked up royally, too!

Do you think having W sit doing nothing for 15 minutes was part of the script?

Do you think NORAD was supposed to sit on its hands for 100 minutes, and Rummy
was supposed to leave his office and go play Florence Nightengale in the parking
lot?

Do you think WTC7 was supposed to stand until 5:20 p.m. and then fall down for
no reason?

Do you think flight 93 was supposed to be shot down?

Suppose W was hightailing it for Mexico when he flew out of Florida, and wouldn't
let NORAD put a fighter escort on him--that's how totally freaked he was about the
disaster.

9/11 was a complete and total fuckup, and they used too much explosives to boot,
right on national TV!

It's only a major campaign to intimidate the press, including the anthrax attacks,
that has kept the obvious out of the news. Now why would honest people reacting
honestly to a national crisis feel it was necessary to intimidate the press?

Dana Priest of WaPo said recently that in the Bush administration, “there is a huge
effort to intimidate the media.”

This story shoujld be front page news across the land, but only a student newspaper in
Indiana is naive enough to print it.

http://thesouthend.typepad.com/tsenews/2006/11/post_reporter_b.html

[angstlessk]

128. Perhaps intially they were not SURE they could get away with it...Jeb

Bush declared semi-martial law on 9/7/01 and President Bush rode around on AF1 all day. Perhaps they were not sure what the reaction to the attacks would be or who would come forward immediatly. In fact the immediate reactions to the falling buildings were that they were controled demolitions. Never to be repeated on MSM again. There have been a couple of suspicious 'suicides' since that time from state departemnt personell and a few diplomates...never mind all the scientists who died mysteriously for the next 2 years or so. Honey, I have never had a conspiratial bone in my body till this 9/11 incident. Even the Kennedy assasination did not spark a tin foil hat in me.

[Chomp]

112. Amongst all this nonsense

one of the CTers actully poses some good questions in an apparant attempt to "catch out" William Segar: Here are the questons and WS's answers:


Q. How could the hijackers do what they supposedly did, while being watched by intel agencies?

A. A damn good question. But I'm sorry, the "9/11 truth movement" is too busy investigating Death Star Beam Weapons at to moment to worry about that.

Q. Why were the hijacked planes not intercepted?

A. Another damn good question.

(posts 12 & 19)


I think this is a telling exchange and says 3 things to me:

1. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and even CTers can ask good questions
2. The best of the non-CTers, like WS, answers questions honestly and without ideological baggage. If something is odd about the day - as with these questions - they won't let their opposition to the CT to cloud their judgement. They maitain an open mind.
3. By contrast, the CTers hold an absolutist position. EVERYTHING is fishy. Nothing is the truth. No reasonable explanation for events is valid if it in any way corresponds to the "official version". This is closed-mindedness.

[greyl]

115. Great post. nt

[petgoat]

125. Without ideological baggage? Give me a break.

Anybody with such strong opinions and such poor knowledge of
the subject matter is crushed under his ideological baggage.

CTers hold an absolutist position. EVERYTHING is fishy.

Everything might be fishy. There's a difference.

No reasonable explanation for events is valid if it in any way corresponds to the "official version".

What reasonable element of the official story did you have in mind?

[angstlessk]

129. Chomp the 'official version' would be fine if it answered the questions

but it does not.

WHY was the crime scene NOT preserved? IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE MOST STUDIED FORENSIC DEPOT EVER ..FOR YEARS TO COME..but all the steel was sent overseas. WHY?

Certainly the administration in charge during the most horrible attack on America EVER would want an investigation so absolutely minute and detailed so they could be freed from any fault. THEY RESISTED THE INVESTIGATION....WHY?

All visual evidence around the Pentagon was confiscated...never to be seen again. WHY?

President Bush said he saw the first plane hit the towers when there was no footage and he commented that it must have been a terrible pilot. What footage is that? NO ONE ELSE SAW THE FIRST PLANE HIT. WHY?

Chomp...even these FEW little tid bits makes my hat turn to foil..if not yours WHY?

[Taxloss]

118. The absence of "anomalies" would be anomalous.

That's somewhat glib, thanks to the constraints of the title bar. What I mean is that your terms are wrong. You corral a series of unrelated questions, many based on flawed premises (comparing a steel building with a swamp made me chuckle, not to mention your misapprehension of how chance works), and then conjure out of nowhere an imagined opponent who is writing off these as "anomalies". A major terrorist attack on New York is fairly anomalous, and (according to your understanding of how chance operates) of all the days in 2001, there was only a 0.23% chance of it happening on Tuesday 11 September! That's less than 1/350th! What an anomaly!

Of course, we are dealing with a major terrorist strike on one of the top five cities in the world, devastating a good chunk of its financial heart, killing 3000 people, injuring more, and directly involving many tens of millions of people around the world. And not just any people, either, some of the most important, most influential and best connected individuals and organisations on the planet are directly involved because, well, they work on Wall Street and in the Pentagon. In the vast and infinitely complicated stained-glass window of human civilisation that was smashed on 9/11, a piece or two that falls will inevitably seem anomalous to one who is looking for anomalies.

And there's the rub - the false premises at the beginning. One who is looking for anomalies. You were right in a way - everything that happened that day was anomalous. It was not business as usual. The gull-hunters and their favoured anomalies ignore the rest, they scour the remains so hard for what is out of place that they cannot see that everything is out of place.

[MervinFerd]

119. That's "anomOlies". And good post.

You make the bet BEFORE you see the cards.

Otherwise, any hand you get is "anomolous".

[angstlessk]

130. NO..even the most perfectly planned murder give the plot away...and so

when you THINK you are so smart you can get away with murder, chances are you leave clues behind...just like this atrocity. ONLY if it really happened in real time would there NOT BE ANOMOLIES...get over it!

[MervinFerd]

131. That's just on TV.

And, then, the clever detective finds stuff the dumber detectives missed.

What's claimed in the original post are glaring "anomolies" that (supposedly) should be obvious to all the world.

Except that all the experts disagree.

[Peace is Possible]

132. They think we are really stupid

It is sick how they have abused our trust. Now I cannot/will not trust them ever again. Or any of the members of congress who have enabled them.