ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 911 conspiracy theory

Reply
Old 12th November 2008, 05:20 AM   #401
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
There were several good posts by ellindsay, X and others concerning remote control. Thanks for their efforts. I'll probably have to update my theory on this issue, but nothing a few cans of nerve gas can not solve.

Consider this easy task for the Q's of the Mossad:

- produce cannisters with nerve gas (or another gas) with a radiographic controlled valve and a timer.
- place the canisters in the plane; either by maintenance crew, after flight clean-up crew or in passenger hand luggage. The airconditioner makes sure everything gets evenly distributed.
- the timer gets radiographicly activated on the moment the plane takes off from the runway, to avoid that the scheme blows up due to delays (flight93 had 41 minutes delay) but within range of radiographic control.
- after 30 minutes or so the gas is released, everybody paralysed, and click says the autopilot.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 06:09 AM   #402
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
There were several good posts by ellindsay, X and others concerning remote control. Thanks for their efforts. I'll probably have to update my theory on this issue, but nothing a few cans of nerve gas can not solve.

Consider this easy task for the Q's of the Mossad:

- produce cannisters with nerve gas (or another gas) with a radiographic controlled valve and a timer.
- place the canisters in the plane; either by maintenance crew, after flight clean-up crew or in passenger hand luggage. The airconditioner makes sure everything gets evenly distributed.
- the timer gets radiographicly activated on the moment the plane takes off from the runway, to avoid that the scheme blows up due to delays (flight93 had 41 minutes delay) but within range of radiographic control.
- after 30 minutes or so the gas is released, everybody paralysed,
Do you have a shred of evidence that any of this actually happened? Only we have evidence for what the real hijackers actually did, which makes our theory better.

Quote:
... and click says the autopilot.
And now you've gone from the unproven to the impossible. You can't set an autopilot by remote control.

Also, perhaps someone with more technical knowledge could confirm this, but surely an autopilot can't be set to perform the manoeuvres seen on 9/11? It performs only the simplest of tasks.

Whereas the actual hijackers had a trained pilot on each team.

See how our theory is better?
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 06:14 AM   #403
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
There were several good posts by ellindsay, X and others concerning remote control. Thanks for their efforts. I'll probably have to update my theory on this issue, but nothing a few cans of nerve gas can not solve.

Consider this easy task for the Q's of the Mossad:

- produce cannisters with nerve gas (or another gas) with a radiographic controlled valve and a timer.
- place the canisters in the plane; either by maintenance crew, after flight clean-up crew or in passenger hand luggage. The airconditioner makes sure everything gets evenly distributed.
- the timer gets radiographicly activated on the moment the plane takes off from the runway, to avoid that the scheme blows up due to delays (flight93 had 41 minutes delay) but within range of radiographic control.
- after 30 minutes or so the gas is released, everybody paralysed, and click says the autopilot.
So now the airlines maintenance crew are in on the plan? And the cleaners? Or a passenger who knows they are going to die due to the gas?

Also, the pesky CVR data, FDR data, ATC tapes and inflight phonecalls all disprove your joke theory.

Nerve gas does not paralyze, it causes a very nasty death. The autopilot has to be switched on or off by flight crew. It cannot do what you think it can.

I did not think there was anyone more stupid and dishonest that Bollyn. I now begin to wonder.
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 06:32 AM   #404
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,368
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
There were several good posts by ellindsay, X and others concerning remote control. Thanks for their efforts. I'll probably have to update my theory on this issue, but nothing a few cans of nerve gas can not solve.

Consider this easy task for the Q's of the Mossad:

- produce cannisters with nerve gas (or another gas) with a radiographic controlled valve and a timer.
- place the canisters in the plane; either by maintenance crew, after flight clean-up crew or in passenger hand luggage. The airconditioner makes sure everything gets evenly distributed.
- the timer gets radiographicly activated on the moment the plane takes off from the runway, to avoid that the scheme blows up due to delays (flight93 had 41 minutes delay) but within range of radiographic control.
- after 30 minutes or so the gas is released, everybody paralysed, and click says the autopilot.
Great. You're just making this up as you go along. What kind of investigator are you, anyway? Do you have ANY actual evidence of this at all? This isn't some video game, kid. You are accusing people of mass murder.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

Last edited by twinstead; 12th November 2008 at 06:33 AM.
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 07:43 AM   #405
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,754
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
This is very easy to debunk:

http://incogman.wordpress.com/2007/1...cing-israelis/

On the morning of 9/11, a little old lady who wishes to be known only as Maria, was called by a neighbor to tell her about the first strike on the North Tower. Grabbing a pair of binoculars, she went to the window overlooking NY. This New Jersey woman then noticed a group of men standing on a white van, photographing and filming the event and acting joyful and happy. They were high-fiving each other and supposedly, holding up lighters like at a rock concert. This shocked her and she copied the license plate numbers and called the law.

They were there within 15 minutes of the first tower being hit, if not before. Plus, they were celebrating when no one else knew if it was an accident or not! Think about that one. This case shows blatant foreknowledge –if nothing else
Yes, you're right, it's very easy to debunk. Let's separate the actual quote from the editorial spin that a pro-conspiratorialist anti-Semitic website has added, something a serious investigator should be doing without prompting. The actual primary source isn't even quoted, but if we take the paraphrasing as accurate - itself something of a stretch, as it relies on the honesty of the secondary source - then here's what we know:

"Maria" saw the men shortly after her neighbour phoned her to tell her about the first strike. There is no information here as to how long after the strike this phone call took place; her neighbour might have only heard about or seen the results of the first strike some time after it took place. We therefore only know that the time of her observation was after the first strike. Nor do we know whether "Maria" saw the group of men through her binoculars or directly, or where they were; however, the inference to be drawn is that they were nearby in New Jersey, not at the scene of the attack.

Now let's look at the spin. The article claims that "they were there within 15 minutes of the first tower being hit, if not before". This is not supported by the paraphrased testimony, so appears to be an invention of the person reporting the events. In particular, the comment, "if not before", is utterly unfounded and unsubstantiated. It also says, "they were celebrating before anyone know whether it was an accident or not"; again, this is not supported by the paraphrased testimony. Nowhere in "Maria"s account is it substantiated that any of these events took place before the second tower was hit, and at that moment it was obvious to any intelligent observer that an attack was taking place.

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
I'll advise the debunkers to pay carefull attention to this issue since this is one of the largest smoking guns and a ticking timebomb under the already discredited OCT and reason why my ICT has much more credebility.
I'll advise you in return that your "smoking gun" consists of the editorial spin placed by a biased and openly racist website on a single witness account which it chooses to paraphrase rather than quote. Any belief that this single, highly dubious piece of editorialisation discredits anything is clear demonstration of confirmation bias.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 12th November 2008 at 07:47 AM.
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 07:59 AM   #406
GStan
Graduate Poster
 
GStan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,339
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
This is very easy to debunk:

http://incogman.wordpress.com/2007/1...cing-israelis/

On the morning of 9/11, a little old lady who wishes to be known only as Maria, was called by a neighbor to tell her about the first strike on the North Tower. Grabbing a pair of binoculars, she went to the window overlooking NY. This New Jersey woman then noticed a group of men standing on a white van, photographing and filming the event and acting joyful and happy. They were high-fiving each other and supposedly, holding up lighters like at a rock concert. This shocked her and she copied the license plate numbers and called the law.

They were there within 15 minutes of the first tower being hit, if not before. Plus, they were celebrating when no one else knew if it was an accident or not! Think about that one. This case shows blatant foreknowledge –if nothing else


I'll advise the debunkers to pay carefull attention to this issue since this is one of the largest smoking guns and a ticking timebomb under the already discredited OCT and reason why my ICT has much more credebility.
You should read this:

http://www.911myths.com/html/dancing_israelis.html

The FBI and CIA investigated and couldn't find any evidence that they were Mossad or that they had any foreknowledge of the attacks.

Of course, this information is coming from an NWO-subsidized government shill website, but you should read it anyway.
__________________
On why one would debate truthers at JREF..."Kind of like holidaying with a cult, without the inconvenience of having to give away the deed to your house." - Confuseling
"Not only do I not know that your fantasy will come true, I would bet my life against a jelly donut that it will not." - Dr. Adequate
GStan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 08:02 AM   #407
GStan
Graduate Poster
 
GStan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,339
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
There were several good posts by ellindsay, X and others concerning remote control. Thanks for their efforts. I'll probably have to update my theory on this issue, but nothing a few cans of nerve gas can not solve.

Consider this easy task for the Q's of the Mossad:

- produce cannisters with nerve gas (or another gas) with a radiographic controlled valve and a timer.
- place the canisters in the plane; either by maintenance crew, after flight clean-up crew or in passenger hand luggage. The airconditioner makes sure everything gets evenly distributed.
- the timer gets radiographicly activated on the moment the plane takes off from the runway, to avoid that the scheme blows up due to delays (flight93 had 41 minutes delay) but within range of radiographic control.
- after 30 minutes or so the gas is released, everybody paralysed, and click says the autopilot.
I believe you hypothesized earlier in this thread that the entire operation could be accomplished with about 40 to 60 people. How many of them were required to complete these easy tasks?
__________________
On why one would debate truthers at JREF..."Kind of like holidaying with a cult, without the inconvenience of having to give away the deed to your house." - Confuseling
"Not only do I not know that your fantasy will come true, I would bet my life against a jelly donut that it will not." - Dr. Adequate
GStan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 08:08 AM   #408
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,368
Quote:
I'll advise you in return that your "smoking gun" consists of the editorial spin placed by a biased and openly racist website on a single witness account which it chooses to paraphrase rather than quote. Any belief that this single, highly dubious piece of editorialisation discredits anything is clear demonstration of confirmation bias.
I'll second that. Only a FOOL would accept that 'evidence' as a "smoking gun", and only an arrogant fool would come on an internet forum trying to shove crap like this down people's throats as the gospel.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

Last edited by twinstead; 12th November 2008 at 08:09 AM.
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 09:47 AM   #409
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
Originally Posted by GStan View Post
You should read this:

http://www.911myths.com/html/dancing_israelis.html

The FBI and CIA investigated and couldn't find any evidence that they were Mossad or that they had any foreknowledge of the attacks.

Of course, this information is coming from an NWO-subsidized government shill website, but you should read it anyway.
heres some interesting info about thoses israelis.
historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=sivan_kurzberg

"An investigator high up in the Bergen County law enforcement hierarchy will say in 2006, “There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted…. It looked like they’re hooked in with this [referring to the 9/11 attacks]. It looked like they knew what was going to happen.…It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park.” [Bergen Record, 9/12/2001]


maybe the fbi and cia didnt have enough time with theses guys. one of these guys refused a lie detector test and when he did, he failed it. if you guys dont find that suspicious then there is something wrong with ya. it would be nice to see what questions were asked. i would also like to see the pics and the "film" they made since they were there to "document" .

about their release-
historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=sivan_kurzberg

Around this time intense political pressure is put on US officials holding five Israeli men arrested for suspicious behavior at the time of the 9/11 attacks (see 3:56 p.m. September 11, 2001). According to the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and two unidentified “prominent New York congressmen” lobby heavily for their release. According to a source at ABC News, well-known criminal lawyer Alan Dershowitz also becomes involved as a negotiator to help get the men released. (Dershowitz will later refuse to comment on the matter.) [CounterPunch, 2/7/2007] ABC News will later report that was “high-level negotiations between Israeli and US government officials” over the five men, resulting in a settlement.
Senenmut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 09:49 AM   #410
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Yes, you're right, it's very easy to debunk. Let's separate the actual quote from the editorial spin that a pro-conspiratorialist anti-Semitic website has added, something a serious investigator should be doing without prompting. The actual primary source isn't even quoted, but if we take the paraphrasing as accurate - itself something of a stretch, as it relies on the honesty of the secondary source - then here's what we know:

"Maria" saw the men shortly after her neighbour phoned her to tell her about the first strike. There is no information here as to how long after the strike this phone call took place; her neighbour might have only heard about or seen the results of the first strike some time after it took place. We therefore only know that the time of her observation was after the first strike. Nor do we know whether "Maria" saw the group of men through her binoculars or directly, or where they were; however, the inference to be drawn is that they were nearby in New Jersey, not at the scene of the attack.

Now let's look at the spin. The article claims that "they were there within 15 minutes of the first tower being hit, if not before". This is not supported by the paraphrased testimony, so appears to be an invention of the person reporting the events. In particular, the comment, "if not before", is utterly unfounded and unsubstantiated. It also says, "they were celebrating before anyone know whether it was an accident or not"; again, this is not supported by the paraphrased testimony. Nowhere in "Maria"s account is it substantiated that any of these events took place before the second tower was hit, and at that moment it was obvious to any intelligent observer that an attack was taking place.



I'll advise you in return that your "smoking gun" consists of the editorial spin placed by a biased and openly racist website on a single witness account which it chooses to paraphrase rather than quote. Any belief that this single, highly dubious piece of editorialisation discredits anything is clear demonstration of confirmation bias.

Dave
http://www.historycommons.org/contex...01fiveisraelis

Shortly After 8:46 a.m. September 11, 2001: Neighbor Sees Suspicious Men Documenting First WTC Attack and Cheering, Calls Police

Statements like these are quite damming for this debunking operation of yours.

While the rest of world was struggling to find out what happened, these Israelis clearly had something to celebrate. Mission accomplished.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 09:55 AM   #411
TexasJack
Penultimate Amazing
 
TexasJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,906
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
I see this thread has devolved into another "Jew Hating" thread from the truthers. Big surprise.

Oh well...hopefully it ends up in "Abandon All Hope" where it belongs at this point.

TAM
As soon as I saw that his theory was 90% based on the work of Chistopher Bollyn, I knew this thread would contain no redeeming value.
TexasJack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 10:14 AM   #412
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17260.htm

Counterpunch has this to say:

What is perhaps most damning is that the Israelis' celebration on the New Jersey waterfront occurred in the first sixteen minutes after the initial crash, when no one was aware this was a terrorist attack. In other words, from the time the first plane hit the north tower, at 8:46 a.m., to the time the second plane hit the south tower, at 9:02 a.m., the overwhelming assumption of news outlets and government officials was that the plane's impact was simply a terrible accident. It was only after the second plane hit that suspicions were aroused. Yet if the men were cheering for political reasons, as they reportedly told the FBI, they obviously believed they were witnessing a terrorist act, and not an accident.

Do you guys have another explanation for this than calling Counterpunch antisemitic?

It is smoking guns like these that normal thinking citizens start to ask questions and have to reject the official story.

And again: I do not claim to have a shred of evidence for 'my' theories. I am just reconstructing, which is a legitimate stage in a process of getting a mystery solved. Never claimed to be doing anything else than that. But the OCT storyline is full with holes, so if I am able to construct a story that is not in contradiction with known facts than I already have an advantage over you. Even if I have no proof whatsoever.

And you have a problem.

Last edited by 9/11-investigator; 12th November 2008 at 10:16 AM. Reason: rephrase
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 10:17 AM   #413
GStan
Graduate Poster
 
GStan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,339
Why did you respond to what I posted without even bothering to read the link?

Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
heres some interesting info about thoses israelis.
historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=sivan_kurzberg

"An investigator high up in the Bergen County law enforcement hierarchy will say in 2006, “There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted…. It looked like they’re hooked in with this [referring to the 9/11 attacks]. It looked like they knew what was going to happen.…It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park.” [Bergen Record, 9/12/2001]
This is a report from the day after 9/11. Do you think that possibly better information came out after 9/12/2001? Who is this quote from and what was their connection to this case to make the determination? And where does the 2006 quote come from?

BTW, Maps of the city? They work for a *** **** moving company for crying out loud. Can you think of any non-sinister reasons why they might have a *** **** map in their van?

And if you had read the link in my post, you would not have stated this:

Quote:
maybe the fbi and cia didnt have enough time with theses guys.
or this,

Quote:
one of these guys refused a lie detector test and when he did, he failed it.
or this,

Quote:
if you guys dont find that suspicious then there is something wrong with ya. it would be nice to see what questions were asked. i would also like to see the pics and the "film" they made since they were there to "document" .
Quote:
about their release-
historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=sivan_kurzberg

Around this time intense political pressure is put on US officials holding five Israeli men arrested for suspicious behavior at the time of the 9/11 attacks (see 3:56 p.m. September 11, 2001). According to the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and two unidentified “prominent New York congressmen” lobby heavily for their release. According to a source at ABC News, well-known criminal lawyer Alan Dershowitz also becomes involved as a negotiator to help get the men released. (Dershowitz will later refuse to comment on the matter.) [CounterPunch, 2/7/2007] ABC News will later report that was “high-level negotiations between Israeli and US government officials” over the five men, resulting in a settlement.
Read the link, the FBI investigated it and found NO EVIDENCE that the men had any foreknowledge of the events of 9/11.

ETA: I misstated in my earlier post that they found no connection to Mossad. Correction: they did find evidence that two of the five men may have been Mossad operatives; in the US spying on Palestinian operations in the US.
__________________
On why one would debate truthers at JREF..."Kind of like holidaying with a cult, without the inconvenience of having to give away the deed to your house." - Confuseling
"Not only do I not know that your fantasy will come true, I would bet my life against a jelly donut that it will not." - Dr. Adequate
GStan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 10:24 AM   #414
1337m4n
Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
 
1337m4n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,510
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Yet if the men were cheering for political reasons, as they reportedly told the FBI, they obviously believed they were witnessing a terrorist act, and not an accident.
Not necessarily, mate. Have you ever heard someone say to someone else "I hope you die in a fire"?

Or perhaps you're familiar with the antics of the Westboro Baptist Church. They believe everything bad that happens to America--9/11 included--is Divine Justice for America's "tolerance" of homosexuality.

It's like that. Even if you don't know whether something was accidental or deliberate, you're still happy that it happened to your worst enemy.



Or perhaps they DID believe they were witnessing a terrorist act. But who's to say they were 100% certain? One could infer after the first plane hit that a terrorist attack was at least one possibility, since planes generally don't crash in perfectly clear weather (at least, not into buildings). So maybe they thought it WAS a terrorist attack, and simply turned out to be correct by sheer coincidence.



And as yet another possibility, perhaps they were cheering about something completely unrelated to the WTC.
__________________
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...2b728514ea.gif

"The evidence that the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job just keeps not coming in." --pomeroo

Last edited by 1337m4n; 12th November 2008 at 10:25 AM.
1337m4n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 10:24 AM   #415
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,754
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
http://www.historycommons.org/contex...01fiveisraelis

Shortly After 8:46 a.m. September 11, 2001: Neighbor Sees Suspicious Men Documenting First WTC Attack and Cheering, Calls Police

Statements like these are quite damming for this debunking operation of yours.

While the rest of world was struggling to find out what happened, these Israelis clearly had something to celebrate. Mission accomplished.
How many times are you planning to proclaim your confirmation bias to the rest of the world? Again, the key phrase here is "shortly after". How long is "shortly"? If it's more than sixteen minutes and twenty-eight seconds, then the second tower had already been hit, and anybody looking at the Twin Towers would be able to figure out that a terrorist attack was in progress. From the history of US policy in the Middle East, it wasn't difficult to figure out that the attacker was an enemy of Israel, particularly for an Israeli; and it wasn't difficult to figure out that this would not leave the US too well-disposed towards the Arab world in general.

So is it reasonable that "shortly after" was more than sixteen minutes and twenty-eight seconds? Let's go back to the original source again, the ABC News report that your first source quoted.

Quote:
She grabbed her binoculars and watched the destruction unfolding in lower Manhattan. But as she watched the disaster, something else caught her eye.
Read the quote, and see what it says, not what you so desperately want it to say. And particularly, what it doesn't say. It doesn't say how long after the first impact her friend phoned her, and it doesn't say how long whe'd been watching when she noticed the men on the roof of the van. It doesn't even say she noticed the men "shortly after" the first tower was hit; that was when her friend phoned her. So your entire smoking gun rests on your unfounded assumption that "shortly" can only mean "even when you add an unspecified amount of time, it's still less than sixteen minutes and twenty-eight seconds".

Your credentials as an investigator are looking worse by the hour. You're clinging desperately to your starting hypothesis, and whenever it's shown to be unfounded you're googling so hurriedly for something to shore it up that you've given up all pretence of rational analysis of your sources. And again, you've chosen to believe a piece of biased editorialisation (the assertion in the title that "shortly after" referred to the observation and not the phone call) because it supports your predetermined agenda. Sorry, but if you post arguments that are full of holes like this, they'll be pulled apart before your eyes.

Oh, and "this debunking operation of yours"? Getting a little paranoid here, aren't you? Is it time for you to claim that the debunkers on this forum are Mossad agents too?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 10:30 AM   #416
1337m4n
Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
 
1337m4n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,510
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
But the OCT storyline is full with holes, so if I am able to construct a story that is not in contradiction with known facts than I already have an advantage over you. Even if I have no proof whatsoever.
That's a bad way of looking at it. Quantum mechanics theory could be said to have "holes", and saying that all quantum behavior is the result of invisible magic faeries is not technically "in contradiction with known facts", but I don't think anyone's about to dismiss quantum mechanics theory in favor of quantum magic faerie theory, and the reason for that is primarily because quantum magic faerie theory has no proof whatsoever. Wheraes quantum mechanics does.

The OCT may have "holes", but then again, so does most every scientific theory. What matters is that the overwhelming majority of available evidence points directly to it.
__________________
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...2b728514ea.gif

"The evidence that the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job just keeps not coming in." --pomeroo

Last edited by 1337m4n; 12th November 2008 at 10:41 AM.
1337m4n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 10:33 AM   #417
GStan
Graduate Poster
 
GStan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,339
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17260.htm

Counterpunch has this to say:

What is perhaps most damning is that the Israelis' celebration on the New Jersey waterfront occurred in the first sixteen minutes after the initial crash, when no one was aware this was a terrorist attack. In other words, from the time the first plane hit the north tower, at 8:46 a.m., to the time the second plane hit the south tower, at 9:02 a.m., the overwhelming assumption of news outlets and government officials was that the plane's impact was simply a terrible accident. It was only after the second plane hit that suspicions were aroused. Yet if the men were cheering for political reasons, as they reportedly told the FBI, they obviously believed they were witnessing a terrorist act, and not an accident.

<snip>I have no proof whatsoever.

And youI have a problem.
Fixed that for you. The FBI was indeed suspicious and disturbed by the actions of these Israelis. That's probably why they investigated them and held them in custody for ten weeks, then deported them. They found NO EVIDENCE of a 9/11 connection or foreknowledge. Your use of the actions of these men to support your hypothesis is in direct contradiction to established facts and the alleged "official story." You have no advantage. Remove this claim from your theory or support your claim with evidence.

BTW, whoever wrote your stories quote-mined the witness testimony. She never said they were "cheering" or "celebrating."
__________________
On why one would debate truthers at JREF..."Kind of like holidaying with a cult, without the inconvenience of having to give away the deed to your house." - Confuseling
"Not only do I not know that your fantasy will come true, I would bet my life against a jelly donut that it will not." - Dr. Adequate
GStan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 10:35 AM   #418
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,368
The idea that all one has to do is find one or more real or imagined holes in one theory to be able to insert whatever crazy, unsupported, idiotic theory in its place and make it default is ludicrous.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 10:35 AM   #419
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,754
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Do you guys have another explanation for this than calling Counterpunch antisemitic?
There isn't an explanation needed. The statement that the men were celebrating before the second plane hit is unsubstantiated by the source quoted for the claim. In other words, it's wrong. It's either sloppy journalism, conspiracist extrapolation presented as fact, or anti-government bias; it really doesn't matter which. If you look at the original source, it doesn't support what Counterpunch says. And you can google as many articles as you like that misrepresent the original story; the original source doesn't substantiate any of them, and that's the source they're all drawn from. Do you understand anything about investigative journalism?

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
And again: I do not claim to have a shred of evidence for 'my' theories. I am just reconstructing, which is a legitimate stage in a process of getting a mystery solved. Never claimed to be doing anything else than that. But the OCT storyline is full with holes, so if I am able to construct a story that is not in contradiction with known facts than I already have an advantage over you. Even if I have no proof whatsoever.
You don't have a shred of plausible evidence for what you refer to as holes in the OCT storyline, just a set of lies and misrepresentations from other conspiracists. And you can't construct a story that's physically feasible, let alone not in contradiction with the known facts. Remember that your entire poison gas / remote takeover scenario has been shown to contradict the information given out by the passengers, and even the identities of the passengers who phoned. You have nothing new to say here, just a racist way of saying a bunch of old stuff. And even that's not new.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 10:41 AM   #420
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
Originally Posted by GStan View Post
Why did you respond to what I posted without even bothering to read the link?



This is a report from the day after 9/11. Do you think that possibly better information came out after 9/12/2001? Who is this quote from and what was their connection to this case to make the determination? And where does the 2006 quote come from?

BTW, Maps of the city? They work for a *** **** moving company for crying out loud. Can you think of any non-sinister reasons why they might have a *** **** map in their van?

And if you had read the link in my post, you would not have stated this:



or this,

or this,

Read the link, the FBI investigated it and found NO EVIDENCE that the men had any foreknowledge of the events of 9/11.

ETA: I misstated in my earlier post that they found no connection to Mossad. Correction: they did find evidence that two of the five men may have been Mossad operatives; in the US spying on Palestinian operations in the US.
i read your link. it didnt say anything about those heavy handed measures. kinda reminds me of that mossad in mexico ordeal where israel had to use heavy handed measures to get those guys released that had grenades and guns and explosives in the mexican congress.

you missed the point where they said places were highlighted and it looks like they were in on it.

would you like to look at those maps, pics, and video?? i know i would.
Senenmut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 10:59 AM   #421
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by 1337m4n View Post
That's a bad way of looking at it. Quantum mechanics could be said to have "holes", and saying that all quantum behavior is the result of invisible magic faeries is not technically "in contradiction with known facts", but I don't think anyone's about to dismiss quantum mechanics in favor of quantum magic faerie theory, and the reason for that is primarily because quantum magic faerie theory has no proof whatsoever. Wheraes quantum mechanics does.
Truth in science is based on consensus. If 99% of the scientists accept the earth-centric model, as was the case for 1500 years or so in Europe, than that's the truth for you. Until some 'lier' comes along with a different heliocentric model. Read Thomas Kuhn, The structure of Scientific Revolutions. In the end that story wins the truth-label that best/efficient explains observed facts.

You debunkers hold indeed 'the truth' as measured in % of population that supports the OCT, because it has been fed this story from hours after the impact when the name bin Laden was dropped incessantly. Why, because the American media will never support anything else than this story. Ownership issues and stuff. Deeply 'antisemitic'. See this video and comment in my blog about the cost of having another oppinion about 9/11 ('interview' CNN with Bollyn plus added moral context by propaganda outlet CNN):
http://www.how911wasdone.blogspot.com/#cost

In other words: OCT is accepted as true because the powers that be support it and hence, via the media, the population.

But again if another story pops up that does explain events better, than OCT really has a problem. Because since 9/11 a new powerful medium emerged. This medium. OCT started to lose credibility because of the emergence of the internet at the expense of the MSM. And it will be the internet that will finally kill off the OCT. By 'liers' like me.

And you know it.

P.S. After this thread is over (because the admin deletes it for instance) I will go back to the drawing board and produce a blog 2.0 with the comments here processed in it (thanks for the 20-40 hours of free consulting from your fine neoconservative minds ). Then there will be another 'drive by shooting operation' on another debunkers forum.

This thread will be saved, rest assured.

Last edited by 9/11-investigator; 12th November 2008 at 11:18 AM. Reason: spelling; added P.S.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 11:13 AM   #422
GStan
Graduate Poster
 
GStan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,339
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
i read your link. it didnt say anything about those heavy handed measures. kinda reminds me of that mossad in mexico ordeal where israel had to use heavy handed measures to get those guys released that had grenades and guns and explosives in the mexican congress.

you missed the point where they said places were highlighted and it looks like they were in on it.
You did not read it. Or you did not comprehend it. The report you quoted from 1 day after the attack asserts that it "looked like" they were in on it. The 20/20 story that was in the link I provided acknowledges that the FBI had similar sentiments:

Originally Posted by 9/11 Myths 20/20 excerpt
The fear of some of the FBI investigators in this particular case was that this group had some advanced knowledge of what was going to happen on 9/11. And once they understood that there was an Israeli connection--an Is-raeli intelligence connection--they became very disturbed, because the implica-tion was that the Israelis may have had some advanced knowledge of the events of 9/11 and hadn't told us.
It "looked like" to the FBI as well. They investigated the case and couldn't find any evidence of a 9/11 connection. There is no reason to be suspicious of the behavior of these individuals in light of 9/11 unless you have additional evidence that the FBI was not privvy to. Stop pretending like this is important.


Quote:
would you like to look at those maps, pics, and video?? i know i would.
You should try to get a look at them. Maybe you'll be able to able to figure out something that a whole bunch of trained FBI investigators and CIA analysist could not figure out.

Or perhaps you could just look at them and just put forth unsubstantiated speculations.
__________________
On why one would debate truthers at JREF..."Kind of like holidaying with a cult, without the inconvenience of having to give away the deed to your house." - Confuseling
"Not only do I not know that your fantasy will come true, I would bet my life against a jelly donut that it will not." - Dr. Adequate

Last edited by GStan; 12th November 2008 at 11:14 AM.
GStan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 11:20 AM   #423
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,854
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Truth in science is based on consensus. If 99% of the scientists accept the earth-centric model, as was the case for 1500 years or so in Europe, than that's the truth for you. Until some 'lier' comes along with a different heliocentric model. Read Thomas Kuhn, The structure of Scientific Revolutions. In the end that story wins the truth-label that best/efficient explains observed facts.

You debunkers hold indeed 'the truth' as measured in % of population that supports the OCT, because it has been fed this story from hours after the impact when the name bin Laden was dropped incessantly. Why, because the American media will never support anything else than this story. Ownership issues and stuff. Deeply 'antisemitic'. See this video and comment in my blog about the cost of having another oppinion about 9/11:
http://www.how911wasdone.blogspot.com/#cost

In other words: OCT is accepted as true because the powers that be support it and hence, via the media, the population.

But again if another story pops up that does explain events better, than OCT really has a problem. Because since 9/11 a new powerful medium emerged. This medium. OCT started to lose credibility because of the emergence of the internet at the expense of the MSM. And it will be the internet that will finally kill off the OCT. By 'liers' like me.

And you know it.

P.S. After this thread is over (because the admin deletes it for instance) I will go back to the drawing board and produce a blog 2.0 with the comments here processed in it (thanks for the 20-40 hours of free consulting from your fine neoconservative minds ). Then there will be another 'drive by shooting operation' on another debunkers forum.

This thread will be saved, rest assured.
It's funny, but you really believe you're making progress.

It's also telling that you think science is based on consensus, rather than built upon evidence. This also explains why you haven't actually bothered with getting any evidence yourself. You think that if you can tell a good enough story, the truth follows automatically.

Of course, you're wrong.
__________________
I’d rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 11:24 AM   #424
GStan
Graduate Poster
 
GStan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,339
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Truth in science is based on consensus. If 99% of the scientists accept the earth-centric model, as was the case for 1500 years or so in Europe, than that's the truth for you. Until some 'lier' comes along with a different heliocentric model. Read Thomas Kuhn, The structure of Scientific Revolutions. In the end that story wins the truth-label that best/efficient explains observed facts.

You debunkers hold indeed 'the truth' as measured in % of population that supports the OCT, because it has been fed this story from hours after the impact when the name bin Laden was dropped incessantly. Why, because the American media will never support anything else than this story. Ownership issues and stuff. Deeply 'antisemitic'. See this video and comment in my blog about the cost of having another oppinion about 9/11:
http://www.how911wasdone.blogspot.com/#cost

In other words: OCT is accepted as true because the powers that be support it and hence, via the media, the population.
I don't think you realize how dumb and unscientific the bolded statements above are. The volume of people who believe something has absolutely nothing to do with what is truth, particularly among the skeptics of this forum. Predictably, the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you have proposed is true:

Concensus in science is based on truth!

Not the other way around. Try harder. Alot harder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
__________________
On why one would debate truthers at JREF..."Kind of like holidaying with a cult, without the inconvenience of having to give away the deed to your house." - Confuseling
"Not only do I not know that your fantasy will come true, I would bet my life against a jelly donut that it will not." - Dr. Adequate
GStan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 11:24 AM   #425
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
There are only 2 possibilities:

1) Arabs (Arab Conspiracy Theory - ACT)
2) Some kind of inside job (CIA, Mossad)

We all know the official story line. I have spent some time constructing a counter theory, the Israeli Conspiracy Theory (ICT) to see how far one can get with it. The theory is for 90% based on the work of Christopher Bollyn.

Intelligent businesslike comments are appreciated.
Well, I can only speak to your conspiracy theory so far, since it seems to be in a somewhat flexible state.

Nonetheless, let's see if we can compare the two. I shall deal here only with the hijacking/remote takeover of the planes, since this seems to be the crucial element.

Let's put the two hypotheses side by side and see how they stack up.



The Accused

The hijackers were:

19 people willing to attack their sworn enemy and gain instant access to the most exclusive district of Paradise.

Each of them has been named and identified:



The Mossad conspirators were:

An estimated 40-60 people willing to attack their sworn ally and keep quiet about it for ever. How the 40-60 estimate was arrived at I have no idea, nor whether it includes people who were subverted but not "in the loop".

Few names have been named. Occasionally a Truther will try to make out a case against Larry Silverstein on the basis that he once said "pull".



The Motive

The hijackers' target:

Al Qaeda's sworn enemy.

Mossad's target:

Israel's sworn ally.

Consequences for the hijackers if they're detected before the execution of their plot:

Al Qaeda loses nineteen operatives, causes some terror, is already at war with the US so has nothing to lose on that score, possibly attracts more donations.

Consequences for Mossad if they're detected before the execution of their plot:

Israel loses its best ally, probably all its other Western allies, and most likely its chances of survival.

Consequences for the hijackers if their identity is discovered after the crime:

None whatsoever.

Consequences for Mossad if their identity is discovered after the crime:

See above; only worse, because an actual atrocity is more shocking than a thwarted one.

The hijackers stand to gain:

Al Qaeda's greatest victory ever against the infidel, plus 72 virgins apiece.

Mossad stand to gain:

The support of the US for Israel ... which they already have ... and would lose instantly if they were found out.



Previous Record

Previous Muslim terrorist attacks or attempted attacks on American soil:
  • The Millenium LAX bomb plot.
  • The 1993 WTC attack.
  • The blind sheihk plan to bomb the NYC tunnels.
  • The plot to blow up a NYC subway in Brooklyn.
  • The murder of tourists on the top of the Empire State Building.
This list is not necessarily exhaustive, nor of course does it include attacks on Americans abroad, such as the attack on the USS Cole.

Previous Mossad attacks or attempted attacks on American soil:
  • I got nothing.


The Means

The hijackers needed:
  • Four trained pilots, which they had.
  • Knives, which they bought.
  • Airplane tickets, which they bought.
Mossad needed:
  • Nonexistent real-time voice morphing software which could imitate the voices of people who Mossad couldn't have predicted would be on the planes with such perfection as to fool their own families.
  • A nonexistent device which allows them to fly a jumbo jet by remote control.
  • Some way of smuggling nerve gas onto airplanes without getting on board themselves.
  • To fake all the actions, not to mention the appearance, of the nineteen "hijackers" for a couple of years, undetected by their family and friends, including one final tour de force where they manage to pretend to board airplanes while in reality "slipping out the side".


The Opportunity

The hijackers needed:

To get on the planes, which they did.

Mossad needed:

Sheesh, where do you start? Just how many people do they need to subvert to have any opportunity?



The Evidence

The evidence for the hijackers taking over the planes by force includes:
  • Their martyrdom tapes.
  • Further claims of responsibility by Al Qaeda top brass.
  • Their acquisition of piloting skills (with no subsequent attempts to become commerical pilots).
  • Their purchase of the requisite weapons, plane tickets, etc.
  • Evidence and witnesses showing that they checked in and boarded.
  • DNA evidence matching bodies from ground zero to vehicles and hotel rooms used by the hijackers.
  • The fact that five (or in one case four) of this group now known to be associated with one another and with al Qaeda were on each of the hijacked planes.
  • Cockpit recordings of men speaking in Arabic.
  • Eyewitness accounts from the planes.
The evidence for Mossad taking over the planes by remote control includes:
  • Zilch.
The evidence against the hijackers taking over the planes by force includes:
  • Nada
The evidence against Mossad taking over the planes by remote control includes:
  • It's technically impossible.
  • There's no evidence for it.
  • All the evidence that proves that the planes were actually hijacked, including tricky stuff like eyewitness acounts and DNA evidence and al Qaeda claiming responsibility.


The Plea

Al Qaeda:

Proudly claim responsibility.

Mossad:

Say that al Qaeda did it.



The Verdict

Well, 9/11-researcher?

Against whom is there the stronger case?

As has been pointed out to you, you are accusing people of mass murder, this is not a game.
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 11:26 AM   #426
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
this is an interesting link about richard armitage and promis software ( the guy that used heavy handed measures to get those israelis out of jail).

from link-
users.on.net/~osbornep/
“As agreed, Messrs, Manucher Ghorbanifar, Adnan Khashoggi and Richard Armitage will broker the transaction of the PROMISE Software to Sheik Klahid bin Mahfouz for resale and general gifts in his region contingent upon the three conditions we last spoke of. PROMISE must have a soft arrival. No Paperwork, customs, or delay. It must be equipped with special data retrieval unit. As before, you must walk the financial aspects through Credit Suisse and National Commercial Bank. If you encounter any problems contact me directly.”

and this is linking the neocons-
William Hamilton confirms that “Early in 2003, INSLAW Counsel Gray obtained the following explanation for the Bush Administration’s stonewalling of his post-9/11 efforts to settle with INSLAW: Paul Wolfowitz, [Deputy Secretary of Defense], Scooter Libby, [Chief of Staff and National Security Advisor to Vice President Cheney], and Richard Perle, [Chairman of the Defense Policy Board], are opposed to a settlement with INSLAW for fear that any settlement could embarrass Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and complicate U.S. policy in the Middle East. Each is intimately familiar with the INSLAW case because the government gave PROMIS to Israel”.

and through the bosnia defense fund, we link neocons to AQ.-

globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUN20051120&art icleId=1291
It is noteworthy that that Yugoslav government, the government with whom Bunel was asserted by the French government to have shared information, claimed that Albanian and Bosnian guerrillas in the Balkans were being backed by elements of "Al Qaeda." We now know that these guerrillas were being backed by money provided by the Bosnian Defense Fund, an entity established as a special fund at Bush-influenced Riggs Bank and directed by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.


and guess who else had promis. osama bin laden. now think about what indirah talked about to the secret service-

fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012705_ptech_pt2.shtml
During the debriefing Indira was asked by a member of the Secret Service, "Is Ptech PROMIS?"

"You have a copy of the software, why don't you tell me? This is not about the software guys, ok - was it a PROMIS? It was a place you could hide a PROMIS, a place you can drop a PROMIS."

and since israel had promis and the guy getting software for ptech was michael goff, could ptech = promis.

and i ask again, who the hell taught bin laden and company how to use promis!!
Senenmut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 11:44 AM   #427
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
In the end that story wins the truth-label that best/efficient explains observed facts.
Whereas your story is not only unsupported by the observed facts, but is crucially dependent on asserting that the observed facts were faked.

This is not the stuff of which "paradigm shifts" are made.

Quote:
In other words: OCT is accepted as true because the powers that be support it and hence, via the media, the population.
To speak for myself, I accept it because the evidence supports it.

If we're going to analyse one another's motives, is it not true that you have a sort of thing about Jews?

Quote:
But again if another story pops up that does explain events better, than OCT really has a problem.
Yes, now please produce one.

Quote:
Because since 9/11 a new powerful medium emerged. This medium. OCT started to lose credibility because of the emergence of the internet at the expense of the MSM.
To put it another way, the only reason Truthism exists at all is because some people believe everythig they read on the Internet, which has lower standards than conventional media.

Quote:
And it will be the internet that will finally kill off the OCT. By 'liers' like me.
You wouldn't believe how often we've heard Truthers brag about their imminent triumph.

Not one of them has yet managed to convince even a majority of the Truth Movement of their version of the Truth.

Just out of interest, how many followers do you have?

Quote:
And you know it.
Not only do I not know that your fantasy will come true, I would bet my life against a jelly donut that it will not.

Quote:
P.S. After this thread is over (because the admin deletes it for instance)
Even if you're planning to commit suicide by mod, this thread will never be deleted and will stand as a permanent monument to your folly.

Quote:
I will go back to the drawing board and produce a blog 2.0 with the comments here processed in it (thanks for the 20-40 hours of free consulting from your fine neoconservative minds ).
Why do Truthers always pretend that all debunkers are "neocons"? Are they simply addicted to falsehood, or do they hope to gain something by it?

Quote:
Then there will be another 'drive by shooting operation' on another debunkers forum.
Please link them to this thread, it'll save 'em a lot of time.

May we take it from your remarks that you are planning shortly to declare victory and run away? That is a manuoevre that I confess never fails to entertain me.
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 11:55 AM   #428
Sparky
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 437
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
how911wasdone.blogspot.com
Has been reported to Blogger as a hate site.
Sparky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 11:57 AM   #429
bje
Graduate Poster
 
bje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,280
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
I see this thread has devolved into another "Jew Hating" thread from the truthers. Big surprise.
It's always relevant where Truthers get their information. How many times have we heard exactly the same thing as we are now hearing from 9/11-investigator?
Quote:
"For our purposes, the most useful way to understand the pervasiveness of conspiracy theories is to examine how people acquire information. For most of what they believe that they know, human beings lack personal or direct information; they must rely on what other people think. In some domains, people suffer from a “crippled epistemology,” in the sense that they know very few things, and what they know is wrong. Many extremists fall in this category; their extremism stems not from irrationality, but from the fact that they have little (relevant) information, and their extremist views are supported by what little they know. Conspiracy theorizing often has the same feature. Those who believe that Israel was responsible for the attacks of 9/11, or that the Central Intelligence Agency killed President Kennedy, may well be responding quite rationally to the informational signals that they receive."

"Conspiracy Theories", Cass R. Sunstein, Harvard University - Harvard Law School, Adrian Vermeule, Harvard University - Harvard Law School, January 15, 2008
__________________
- There is only one way to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong.
bje is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 12:01 PM   #430
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,754
Originally Posted by GStan View Post
I don't think you realize how dumb and unscientific the bolded statements above are. The volume of people who believe something has absolutely nothing to do with what is truth, particularly among the skeptics of this forum. Predictably, the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you have proposed is true:

Concensus in science is based on truth!
What I particularly like about this argument of 9/11-investigator's is its utter futility. If consensus is based on truth, then truth must be based on objective assessment of evidence, so the 9/11 truth movement loses. Conversely, if perceived truth is based on consensus, then only 4.6% of Americans accept any form of MIHOP scenario, so the 9/11 truth movement loses again. It's not the most compelling argument for the inside job, or for the intelligence of those who choose to present it.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 12:19 PM   #431
1337m4n
Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
 
1337m4n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,510
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator
But the OCT storyline is full with holes, so if I am able to construct a story that is not in contradiction with known facts than I already have an advantage over you. Even if I have no proof whatsoever.
Originally Posted by 1337m4n
That's a bad way of looking at it. Quantum mechanics theory could be said to have "holes", and saying that all quantum behavior is the result of invisible magic faeries is not technically "in contradiction with known facts", but I don't think anyone's about to dismiss quantum mechanics theory in favor of quantum magic faerie theory, and the reason for that is primarily because quantum magic faerie theory has no proof whatsoever. Wheraes quantum mechanics does.
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Truth in science is based on consensus. If 99% of the scientists accept the earth-centric model, as was the case for 1500 years or so in Europe, than that's the truth for you. Until some 'lier' comes along with a different heliocentric model. Read Thomas Kuhn, The structure of Scientific Revolutions. In the end that story wins the truth-label that best/efficient explains observed facts.

You debunkers hold indeed 'the truth' as measured in % of population that supports the OCT, because it has been fed this story from hours after the impact when the name bin Laden was dropped incessantly. Why, because the American media will never support anything else than this story. Ownership issues and stuff. Deeply 'antisemitic'. See this video and comment in my blog about the cost of having another oppinion about 9/11 ('interview' CNN with Bollyn plus added moral context by propaganda outlet CNN):
http://www.how911wasdone.blogspot.com/#cost

In other words: OCT is accepted as true because the powers that be support it and hence, via the media, the population.

But again if another story pops up that does explain events better, than OCT really has a problem. Because since 9/11 a new powerful medium emerged. This medium. OCT started to lose credibility because of the emergence of the internet at the expense of the MSM. And it will be the internet that will finally kill off the OCT. By 'liers' like me.

And you know it.

P.S. After this thread is over (because the admin deletes it for instance) I will go back to the drawing board and produce a blog 2.0 with the comments here processed in it (thanks for the 20-40 hours of free consulting from your fine neoconservative minds ). Then there will be another 'drive by shooting operation' on another debunkers forum.

This thread will be saved, rest assured.
Uhh...what? None of that addresses what I said. It looks as though you just wrote a completely unrelated post and added my quote to the top of it for the sheer joy.
__________________
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...2b728514ea.gif

"The evidence that the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job just keeps not coming in." --pomeroo

Last edited by 1337m4n; 12th November 2008 at 12:22 PM.
1337m4n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 12:38 PM   #432
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 6,087
Most truthers are the Don Quijote-type Want to play the hero Truther.. You are more of an anti-semitic truther. Now now, you guys have more in common than one might think. The Blame it on the Jews, regardless of evidence truther is an evolutionary ancestor of the Anglo-Saxons/NWO pulled off 9/11. However, there are some distinctions. Most anti-semitic truthers are no-planers because they love to pull the "Jews own the media" card. But upon further investigation, the similarities between your evolutionary cousins can be seen. Just like the no planers, your "Remote-controlled commercial jets/secret knock-out punch" theory doesn't even past the laugh test. The "fake phone calls" has long passed its expiration date. Of course, no truther theory would be complete without a tower 7 CD theory. Not as imaginative as the no planers, but just as stupid.

Last edited by Baylor; 12th November 2008 at 12:47 PM.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 12:49 PM   #433
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Dr Adequate View Post
Well, I can only speak to your conspiracy theory so far, since it seems to be in a somewhat flexible state.

Nonetheless, let's see if we can compare the two. I shall deal here only with the hijacking/remote takeover of the planes, since this seems to be the crucial element.

Let's put the two hypotheses side by side and see how they stack up.
Bravo. This is a good approach!


Quote:
The Accused

The hijackers were:

19 people willing to attack their sworn enemy and gain instant access to the most exclusive district of Paradise.

Each of them has been named and identified:

http://www.danzfamily.com/pictures/p.../hijackers.jpg
You are aware that even the BBC claimed that several said hijackers were reported to be alive.


Quote:
The Mossad conspirators were:

An estimated 40-60 people willing to attack their sworn ally and keep quiet about it for ever. How the 40-60 estimate was arrived at I have no idea, nor whether it includes people who were subverted but not "in the loop".

Few names have been named. Occasionally a Truther will try to make out a case against Larry Silverstein on the basis that he once said "pull".
See my blog for a list of 12 core conspiricists + 20-40 whatever Israeli foot soldiers ('movers', programmers, stand-ins at flight schools). I made the case against Larry for buying the WTC, riddled with asbestos, insures against terrorist attacks, hires an Israeli security firm for the complex, owned by a top zionist billionaire (Greenberg) and has a friendship with Netanjahu. I never pulled the pull so far. Now that you mention it...



Quote:
The Motive

The hijackers' target:

Al Qaeda's sworn enemy.

Mossad's target:

Israel's sworn ally.
Al Qaeda itself is a vague organisation. Some doubt even if it exists at all. I have no doubt that many Arabs out of a healthy xenophobia would like to kick the westerners out of Arabia. I myself like the somewhat dubious slogan that the killed Theo van Gogh (slaughtered by Muslims 300 meters from here) used to say ironically: 'Morocco for the Moroccans'

Objection: Israel's sworn vasal. Since Mearsheimer and Walt we do not have to go to David Duke any longer for the opinion that Israel determines American foreign policy. And the rest of American Society I might add.

Quote:
Consequences for the hijackers if they're detected before the execution of their plot:

Al Qaeda loses nineteen operatives, causes some terror, is already at war with the US so has nothing to lose on that score, possibly attracts more donations.

Consequences for Mossad if they're detected before the execution of their plot:

Israel loses its best ally, probably all its other Western allies, and most likely its chances of survival.
The consequences could be potentially disastrous. Hence your fierce resistance. There is a fall back scenario though: namely the (valid) excuse for Israel that 9/11 was carried out by 'rogue elements'. I do not claim that there ever was an Israeli or American cabinet session that discussed the plot we are discussing here. In the worst case Olmert, Netanjahu, Zakheim, Silverstein etc. will be convicted. Maybe a couple of billion reparations. But the real danger will be an uprising within the American establishment. Think of Ron Paul as an American Jeltzin, standing on a tank in front of Capitol Hill throwing crappy little Michael Ledeen against a wall just to show that he means business.

Quote:
Consequences for the hijackers if their identity is discovered after the crime:

None whatsoever.

Consequences for Mossad if their identity is discovered after the crime:

See above; only worse, because an actual atrocity is more shocking than a thwarted one.
The Mossad is a state organ. It will probably not act independently. Certainly not on 9/11. The dire consequences would be for Olmert and Netanjahu.


Quote:
The hijackers stand to gain:

Al Qaeda's greatest victory ever against the infidel, plus 72 virgins apiece.

Mossad stand to gain:

The support of the US for Israel ... which they already have ... and would lose instantly if they were found out.
Baloney. The leadership of Al Qaeda (assuming AQ exists at all) would be smart enough to understand that this would be an open invitation to get American troops landing on their shores.


Quote:
Previous Record

Previous Muslim terrorist attacks or attempted attacks on American soil:
  • The Millenium LAX bomb plot.
  • The 1993 WTC attack.
  • The blind sheihk plan to bomb the NYC tunnels.
  • The plot to blow up a NYC subway in Brooklyn.
  • The murder of tourists on the top of the Empire State Building.
This list is not necessarily exhaustive, nor of course does it include attacks on Americans abroad, such as the attack on the USS Cole.

Previous Mossad attacks or attempted attacks on American soil:
  • I got nothing.
Your list would be a perfect case for showing the utter incompetence of Muslims. The Mossad was implicated in 1993 as discussed yesterday (post dumped by admin). USS Cole was bombed in Yemen, Arabian territory. And Israel has of course the huge precedent of attacking the USS Liberty as a clear false flag operation. Covered up by Johnson. It shows clearly that Israel has no problem attacking the 'ally' US if it suits it needs.

Quote:
The Means

The hijackers needed:
  • Four trained pilots, which they had.
  • Knives, which they bought.
  • Airplane tickets, which they bought.
Mossad needed:
  • Nonexistent real-time voice morphing software which could imitate the voices of people who Mossad couldn't have predicted would be on the planes with such perfection as to fool their own families.
  • A nonexistent device which allows them to fly a jumbo jet by remote control.
  • Some way of smuggling nerve gas onto airplanes without getting on board themselves.
  • To fake all the actions, not to mention the appearance, of the nineteen "hijackers" for a couple of years, undetected by their family and friends, including one final tour de force where they manage to pretend to board airplanes while in reality "slipping out the side".
- Non-existent? It exists now. I agree it is my task to show it existed in 2001. I would be surprised if ti did not. My Commodore64 could speak in 1984.
- I have pointed at the US-patent. Zakheim worked for SPC that PRODUCED these systems. I agree I have yet to show it was implemented on the planes
- Getting a box cutter or a bottle with liquid on board is a hard sell indeed but not unthinkable.
- I have sketched the scenario regarding the stand-ins. The slipping out of the airport after checkin is the easiest part. Provided the security firm is Huntington, owned by Atzmon, a convicted criminal who was well acquainted with Olmert.

Quote:
The Opportunity

The hijackers needed:

To get on the planes, which they did.

Mossad needed:

Sheesh, where do you start? Just how many people do they need to subvert to have any opportunity?
Again, some 'hijackers' are reported to be alive.
Mossad: see blog and this thread.
Do not underestimate the difficulties your own conspiracy theory. You need no less than 19 people willing to commit suicide to start with! Let that sink in. For a ridiculous motive. These guys were half westernized themselves. And they need to be part of a larger organisation as well with people who can talk.

Quote:
The Evidence

The evidence for the hijackers taking over the planes by force includes:
  • Their martyrdom tapes.
  • Further claims of responsibility by Al Qaeda top brass.
  • Their acquisition of piloting skills (with no subsequent attempts to become commerical pilots).
  • Their purchase of the requisite weapons, plane tickets, etc.
  • Evidence and witnesses showing that they checked in and boarded.
  • DNA evidence matching bodies from ground zero to vehicles and hotel rooms used by the hijackers.
  • The fact that five (or in one case four) of this group now known to be associated with one another and with al Qaeda were on each of the hijacked planes.
  • Cockpit recordings of men speaking in Arabic.
  • Eyewitness accounts from the planes.
Tapes are easy to fake. As far as I am aware did bin Laden never claim he was behind it. Maybe we can elaborate on that one. In my scenario the identities were stolen, hence the purchase by 'Atta' c.s. Boarding --> Atzmon people deliver 'proof', see blog. This DNA from hijackers from the Ground Zero pile. You must be joking right? The did find Atta's passport though unscathed in a street nearby. That was so obvious planted evidence; that was a real mistake to do that. In the ICT Atta was murdered, probably as early as in Hamburg, his passport confiscated and ending up in Manhattan on 9/11. Probably left there by a 'mover'. Recordings: can be faked. I believe Senenmut hinted at the Israeli accent 'Atta' had. We can discuss this later.

Quote:
The evidence for Mossad taking over the planes by remote control includes:
  • Zilch.
The evidence against the hijackers taking over the planes by force includes:
  • Nada
The evidence against Mossad taking over the planes by remote control includes:
  • It's technically impossible.
  • There's no evidence for it.
  • All the evidence that proves that the planes were actually hijacked, including tricky stuff like eyewitness acounts and DNA evidence and al Qaeda claiming responsibility.
You forget to mention our prominent member of that PNAC group that plotted for a global coup d'etat no less: Zakheim. He had worked 4 years as a CEO for a company that produced systems for remote control of airplanes. And the same guy who's office got hit at 9/11, conveniently destroying evidence of financial data and comptrollers regarding the 2 trillions missing from the Pentagon books. The same Zakheim who was resposible for delivering billions and billions of military hardware to Israel. THAT ZAKHEIM. Give me a break, will ye!


Quote:
The Plea

Al Qaeda:

Proudly claim responsibility.

Mossad:

Say that al Qaeda did it.
Bin Laden denied. Maybe that a couple of local loosers wanted to jump on the bandwagon acquiring local fame based on hot air. I do not deny that the muslims world wide, being on second last position in the global pecking order (before Africa), liked that they had dealt America a blow. Self-esteem and stuff.

Quote:
The Verdict

Well, 9/11-researcher?

Against whom is there the stronger case?

As has been pointed out to you, you are accusing people of mass murder, this is not a game.
That is to be decided by the readers. And save me you moral patronizing.

Last edited by 9/11-investigator; 12th November 2008 at 01:12 PM.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2008, 01:42 PM   #434
chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
 
chillzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,539
Mod WarningAfter some discussion it has been agreed to return this thread, but on moderated status. Posts will only be approved if they are completely civil, and address the topic and not another member.
Posted By:chillzero

Last edited by chillzero; 13th November 2008 at 03:50 AM.
chillzero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2008, 06:43 AM   #435
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,754
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
You are aware that even the BBC claimed that several said hijackers were reported to be alive.
Just picking up this point as another example of where 9/11-investigator could have profitably researched a little deeper into the source material.

For a start, the word "even" seems strange here, as the BBC is in fact the common source for most of the "Hijacker still alive" claims. The story was published in late September 2001, when there was still confusion over the hijackers' identities - as admitted by FBI director Robert Mueller, quoted in the story - and subsequent reports have clarified the position. For a summary, see links from the page http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html which make it clear that the individuals referenced in the article are not those identified as the hijackers.

Also, the way 9/11-researcher references the story is interesting. The BBC "claimed that several said hijackers were reported to be alive". In other words, this evidence is no more than hearsay - and, as it turns out, mistaken hearsay. Again, using this as evidence to cast serious doubt on "the official story" is to assign a weight to it that is unwarranted by its quality.

Finally, it's significant that all the "Hijackers still alive" stories, with the exception of the repeated changes of story from Mohammed Atta's father, come from very shortly after the attacks, and attempts to verify them have always failed, especially since Saudi Arabia's admission of the identities of fifteen of the hijackers. It's hardly unexpected, in a criminal investigation, that the quality of the information obtained should be refined as the investigation progresses, allowing erroneous information to be identified and rejected. The fact that conspiracy theorists prefer to reference the earliest reports, rejecting the corrections that follow them, is a clear example of confirmation bias coupled with a lack of a sense of proportion. The evidence that appears to cast doubt on "the official story" is, here as ever, of the poorest quality, and when that quality is refined the doubt is removed.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2008, 07:40 AM   #436
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
You are aware that even the BBC claimed that several said hijackers were reported to be alive.
Several of them were still reported to be alive, before photographs of all of them had been released. Then it turned out to be a case of mistaken identity, as the BBC reported.

If they were still alive, all they'd have to do to clear their names of this monstrous crime and expose the OCT would be to say: "Hey, look, I'm alive". None of them has done so.

As I pointed out to Sennemut, one inaccurate report does not overturn the actual evidence, which is the stuff on which accurate reports are based.

And you do realise, don't you, that reports of the hijackers, or "hijackers" still being alive, if accurate, would destroy your hypothesis too? Your hypothetical 19 Mossad agents wouldn't go around pretending to be the hijackers after the hijackers were dead, would they? 'Cos of Mossad not being idiots. So according to your own hypothesis, these reports must have been erroneous; which they are.

Quote:
See my blog for a list of 12 core conspiricists + 20-40 whatever Israeli foot soldiers ('movers', programmers, stand-ins at flight schools). I made the case against Larry for buying the WTC, riddled with asbestos, insures against terrorist attacks, hires an Israeli security firm for the complex, owned by a top zionist billionaire (Greenberg) and has a friendship with Netanjahu. I never pulled the pull so far. Now that you mention it...
Knowing Jews, even rich ones, is not evidence of complicity in mass-murder.

You will find the whole insurance and asbestos thing covered extensively on these forums.

Quote:
Al Qaeda itself is a vague organisation. Some doubt even if it exists at all.
The people that we mean by al Qaeda exist, even if it doesn't have actual membership cards. Much the same could be said of "neocons". It's a vague label, but if I denied that they even existed you could just give me a list of some people who are neocons, yes?

Quote:
Objection: Israel's sworn vasal. Since Mearsheimer and Walt we do not have to go to David Duke any longer for the opinion that Israel determines American foreign policy. And the rest of American Society I might add.
Your rhetoric is swamping your hypothesis. If the US is an Israeli vassal, and Israel "determines" American foreign policy, then there would be no need to trick the US into doing anything, and you have annihilated Mossad's supposed motive for pulling off 9/11.

Quote:
The consequences could be potentially disastrous. Hence your fierce resistance.
No. And, as I have pointed out, if we're going to get into analysis of motives here, I don't think that you should cast the first stone.

Quote:
There is a fall back scenario though: namely the (valid) excuse for Israel that 9/11 was carried out by 'rogue elements'. I do not claim that there ever was an Israeli or American cabinet session that discussed the plot we are discussing here. In the worst case Olmert, Netanjahu, Zakheim, Silverstein etc. will be convicted. Maybe a couple of billion reparations. But the real danger will be an uprising within the American establishment. Think of Ron Paul as an American Jeltzin, standing on a tank in front of Capitol Hill throwing crappy little Michael Ledeen against a wall just to show that he means business.
We can agree, though, that the consequences would be bad for Israel. I think in the long term they'd be catastrophic. It would be hard, would it not, for them to maintain their putative stranglehold over American foreign policy? Or any influence at all?

I don't know where you got this "couple of billion" from, reconstructing the WTC complex alone is estimated at $12 billion.

Quote:
The Mossad is a state organ. It will probably not act independently. Certainly not on 9/11.
That's why the consequences I listed were for Israel, not Mossad.

Quote:
Baloney. The leadership of Al Qaeda (assuming AQ exists at all) would be smart enough to understand that this would be an open invitation to get American troops landing on their shores.
If my conspirators have perfect foreknowledge of the consequences of their actions, then so do yours (sauce for the goose) and you must explain why Israel wanted the US to invade Afghanistan. You might also want to explain why none of the fake hijackers were fake Palestinians.

To the question of al Qaeda's motives. Your point is fair, but not unanswerable.

(1) Did they know this would prompt the invasion of Afghanistan? They had made attacks before, less devastating to be sure, without this happening. As I understand it, the joke going round the Middle East before 9/11 was that if someone attacked America --- they'd sue.

(2) Perhaps the invasion of Afghanistan was exactly what they wanted. Historically, Afghanistan has been a trap. They pwned the last superpower to invade them, despite the USSR having the huge advantage of a common border. Al Qaeda, who were not themselves Afghans, might have thought it most clever to lure the US into what they expected to be a second Vietnam.

(3) They are loonies. "Smart", perhaps, but loonies. Fanatics and fatalists, they think that they should fight the good fight (as they see it) and leave the results up to Allah.

(4) It would not be "smart" to declare war on America at all if one was in fact afraid ever to strike any significant blow.

Quote:
Your list would be a perfect case for showing the utter incompetence of Muslims.
If you're trying to use their previous track record to prove that they couldn't have done 9/11, is that not a little like saying that a runner can't have achieved his personal best time, because there's no record of him running that fast on any other occasion?

Maybe 9/11 was a particularly good plan. If you think about it, it was a good plan. It doesn't require the terrorists to do anything even slightly illegal until the very moment of the hijack (no rules against knives on planes back then, it seems silly in retrospect) and then two minutes later they're armed with something that weighs four hundred tons and travels at five hundred miles an hour.

Quote:
The Mossad was implicated in 1993 as discussed yesterday (post dumped by admin).
No. But assuming they were, will you call that "a perfect case for showing the utter incompetence of Mossad"?

Quote:
USS Cole was bombed in Yemen, Arabian territory.
That's why I gave it as an example of an attack on Americans not carried out on American soil

Quote:
And Israel has of course the huge precedent of attacking the USS Liberty as a clear false flag operation. Covered up by Johnson. It shows clearly that Israel has no problem attacking the 'ally' US if it suits it needs.
A false flag attack involves pretending to be someone else. Whatever you think about the Liberty incident, it was not a false flag.

Quote:
- Non-existent? It exists now. I agree it is my task to show it existed in 2001. I would be surprised if ti did not. My Commodore64 could speak in 1984.
So you have no evidence for real-time voice-morphing software in 2001. (I haven't looked yet at your alleged proof that it exists now --- you know you've made enough posts to post links, yes?) But beyond that, we have shown that at least four of the phone calls were made by people whom Mossad couldn't have predicted would be on the planes. No software in the world is going to mimic a guy's voice well enough to fool his mother without a sample of his voice to work from, you can see the impossibility there.

Quote:
- I have pointed at the US-patent. Zakheim worked for SPC that PRODUCED these systems. I agree I have yet to show it was implemented on the planes
Hello? We discussed the patent you showed us. Not only was it not implemented on these planes, it was not implemented at all. Or built. Or designed.

Quote:
- Getting a box cutter or a bottle with liquid on board is a hard sell indeed but not unthinkable.
There'd be no problem with box-cutters, which were not prohibited, you'd have a tougher time with nerve gas.

And your hypothesis has two additional problems. First, your conspirators need to get the nerve gas on board without boarding themselves, unlike the real hijackers, who faced no such difficulty.

And second, I have evidence that the hijackers got on board armed with "cardboard cutters and knives" (according to witness Barbara Olsen); whereas you don't have a scrap of evidence for the nerve gas, which you just introduced to fill a gap in your hypothesis.

And this is the problem with your way of working. There is no evidence of nerve gas, and you had no suspicion of nerve gas --- until you needed it to fill in one of the holes in your collander-like theory, when suddenly, hey presto! there it is, like the voice-morphing software and a method to radio control a mechanically steered jumbo jet.

Quote:
- I have sketched the scenario regarding the stand-ins.
Sketched is the word.

Quote:
The slipping out of the airport after checkin is the easiest part. Provided the security firm is Huntington, owned by Atzmon, a convicted criminal who was well acquainted with Olmert.
Has it occurred to you that the employees of a company are not mindless robot slaves of whoever owns it?

And that your slipping out the side theory is contradicted by all the evidence.

Again, this bit where nineteen people are smuggled out of three separate airports doesn't appear in your hypothesis because there's a shred of evidence to show that it happened (indeed, the evidence shows that it didn't) but simply because you need it to be true. But why should we think that it's true?

Quote:
Again, some 'hijackers' are reported to be alive.
See above. You mean "were", not "are".

Quote:
Do not underestimate the difficulties your own conspiracy theory. You need no less than 19 people willing to commit suicide to start with!
Recruiting suicide bombers is the easy bit. They have no problem with that, you must have noticed.

Quote:
Let that sink in. For a ridiculous motive. These guys were half westernized themselves. And they need to be part of a larger organisation as well with people who can talk.
You mean like al Qaeda saying "Yes, we did it"?

Quote:
Tapes are easy to fake.
That is easy to say.

Many Truthers have said so, but none of them has actually produced a Bin Laden video capable of fooling al Jazeera and the CIA.

And why don't al Qaeda denounce the fakes? Could they be in on it?

Quote:
As far as I am aware did bin Laden never claim he was behind it.
Perhaps you should have watched the video I posted.

Oh, but wait, tapes are "easy to fake".

So what do you want him to do, come round your house?

Oh, but wait, it could be a Mossad agent who's had plastic surgery ...

Again, I have to ask, do you have any evidence the the al Qaeda tapes are faked ... or is it just something you require to fill up another gaping hole in your hypothesis?

Quote:
This DNA from hijackers from the Ground Zero pile. You must be joking right?
DNA from the hotel rooms and vehicles used by the hijackers was matched to body parts found at crash sites. It follows either that the hijackers were indeed on the planes ... or that you're now going to add some more unevidenced bunkum to your hypothesis to get round that.

Quote:
The did find Atta's passport though unscathed in a street nearby.
Satam al-Suqami's, I believe.

Quote:
That was so obvious planted evidence; that was a real mistake to do that.
Saying that something is "obvious" is not actually a demonstration that it's true, you might want to work a little harder on that one.

Why is is "obviously" planted except that you (obviously) need it to be planted, to square your hypothesis with reality?

Quote:
You forget to mention our prominent member of that PNAC group that plotted for a global coup d'etat no less: Zakheim. He had worked 4 years as a CEO for a company that produced systems for remote control of airplanes.
Would that give him the power to retrofit mechanically-steered jumbo jets with radio control devices which don't exist in such a way that no-one would notice?

Quote:
Bin Laden denied. Maybe that a couple of local loosers wanted to jump on the bandwagon acquiring local fame based on hot air.
Watch the video, or any of the other al Qaeda videos on YouTube or wherever.

Quote:
I do not deny that the muslims world wide, being on second last position in the global pecking order (before Africa), liked that they had dealt America a blow. Self-esteem and stuff.
OK, earlier on you were claiming that they wouldn't actually do 9/11 because of the consequences. Now you're claiming that they'd pretend to have done it and hang the consequences ... to boost their self esteem?

This seems somewhat inconsistent.

Quote:
That is to be decided by the readers.
Yes, and you are one of them. I am interested in your opinion.

Let's look at the two cases again.

I have documentary, eyewitness and forensic medical evidence that the hijackers had terrorist associations, made martyrdom tapes, bought knives, bought tickets, checked in, boarded the planes, took them over armed with knives and boxcutters, and were on the planes when they crashed. Oh, and al Qaeda claimed responsibility.

You have no evidence that the "hijackers" were successfully impersonated by Mossad agents for a couple of years, no evidence of them "slipping out the side", no evidence of complicity by airport staff, no evidence of nerve gas being smuggled onto the planes, no evidence that the planes had been fitted with remote control devices, no evidence that anyone has even designed such a device for such planes, no evidence that such a device was ever fitted to the planes, no explanation of how it could be fitted without anyone finding out, no evidence that real-time voice morphing such as could fool a parent or lover existed in 2001, no explanation as to how Mossad could have used this gimmick to impersonate people whose presence on the planes they could not have predicted ...

... and you require that all the evidence we do have is a fake; a proposition which is itself unsupported by any evidence.

So in your opinion, speaking as one of the readers by whom it is to be decided, which of us has the stronger case right now?

Last edited by Dr Adequate; 13th November 2008 at 08:59 AM.
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2008, 08:19 AM   #437
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,754
Originally Posted by Dr Adequate View Post
(2) Perhaps the invasion of Afghanistan was exactly what they wanted. Historically, Afghanistan has been a trap. They pwned the last superpower to invade them, despite the USSR having the huge advantage of a common border. Al Qaeda, who were not themselves Afghans, might have thought it most clever to lure the US into what they expected to be a second Vietnam.
Matters arising: To what extent have the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq actually been detrimental to the aims of al-Qaeda? Some training infrastructure has been lost to them, along with a sympathetic host state, but the existence of state support is almost by definition rare for a non-national militant organisation. Some operatives have been killed or captured, but there seems to be little difficulty in recruiting new members to replace them, so for an organisation willing to engage in suicide attacks this is hardly a show-stopper. On the other side of the equation, there are now two target-rich environments where US and allied troops are experiencing serious difficulties and continuous casualties in conflict with al-Qaeda, and it's far from certain that Iraq is now any better than a second Vietnam. It's quite possible that, given foreknowledge of the ensuing sequence of events, Osama bin Laden would still have happily proceeded with the 9/11 attacks, as the current situation may suit his purposes very nicely.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2008, 09:02 AM   #438
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
9/11 Investigator:

I have you on ignore, mainly because you are simply regurgitation all the same arguments we have seen here a million times.

If you are here legitimately because you want to get the opinions of people here on the topics, then why have you not used google to cross reference JREF with your topics.

The topic of the "hijackers still alive" has been discussed here, over and over and over. If you only search, you will find much on it (most in the archives, as this is a long debunked truther theory).

So here it is in a nutshell.

1. No proof that the actual hijackers, PICTURED currently at the FBI site, are still alive.
2. Any cases of people with the same names as the hijackers being still alive are cases of mistaken identity, as they do not look like the people in the photos.
3. Der Spiegel, I believe, reviewed this idiocy, and came to the same conclusions.

As well, I have noticed, that most of your accusation and theory is based purely on "Who had the motive". Well that is all well and good, but without proof, it is nothing more than harmful libel/slander.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2008, 09:25 AM   #439
GStan
Graduate Poster
 
GStan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,339
Originally Posted by Dr Adequate View Post
<snip lots of stuff that 911inv will likely ignore anyway>

Let's look at the two cases again.

I have documentary, eyewitness and forensic medical evidence that the hijackers had terrorist associations, made martyrdom tapes, bought knives, bought tickets, checked in, boarded the planes, took them over armed with knives and boxcutters, and were on the planes when they crashed. Oh, and al Qaeda claimed responsibility.

You have no evidence that the "hijackers" were successfully impersonated by Mossad agents for a couple of years, no evidence of them "slipping out the side", no evidence of complicity by airport staff, no evidence of nerve gas being smuggled onto the planes, no evidence that the planes had been fitted with remote control devices, no evidence that anyone has even designed such a device for such planes, no evidence that such a device was ever fitted to the planes, no explanation of how it could be fitted without anyone finding out, no evidence that real-time voice morphing such as could fool a parent or lover existed in 2001, no explanation as to how Mossad could have used this gimmick to impersonate people whose presence on the planes they could not have predicted ...

... and you require that all the evidence we do have is a fake; a proposition which is itself unsupported by any evidence.

So in your opinion, speaking as one of the readers by whom it is to be decided, which of us has the stronger case right now?
The patience that allows you to go through all of that information yet again is remarkable.

And this is the point in the argument where those claiming to be pursuing the truth fail almost without exception. 9/11 investigator has two choices:

1) he can acknowledge that the evidence supporting the "official theory" is far superior to that which he is using to support his theory. This does not necessarily mean the abandonment of his theory, just the acknowledgement that his theory, as proposed, is not supported. He can continue to objectively investigate 9/11 to find the evidence, (thus opening himself up to the joy that many refer to as "learning") adjusting his theory along the way.

or...

2) he can ignore the fact that the evidence does not support his theory, and ignore all the information that has been provided to him by you and others in this thread. He will continue to subjectively investigate 9/11, oblivious to all the information that does not support his predetermined conclusions, (thus dooming himself indefinitely to a tragic state of existence that many refer to as "willful ignorance") never adjusting his theory along the way.
__________________
On why one would debate truthers at JREF..."Kind of like holidaying with a cult, without the inconvenience of having to give away the deed to your house." - Confuseling
"Not only do I not know that your fantasy will come true, I would bet my life against a jelly donut that it will not." - Dr. Adequate
GStan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2008, 09:27 AM   #440
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Do not underestimate the difficulties your own conspiracy theory. You need no less than 19 people willing to commit suicide to start with! Let that sink in.
let this sink in

Originally Posted by WP
The numbers in Iraq alone are breathtaking: About 400 suicide bombings have shaken Iraq since the U.S. invasion in 2003, and suicide now plays a role in two out of every three insurgent bombings. In May, an estimated 90 suicide bombings were carried out in the war-torn country -- nearly as many as the Israeli government has documented in the conflict with Palestinians since 1993
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071601363.html

19 would be very easy to find I imagine.
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:25 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.