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.
Reply
Old 9th October 2010, 12:48 AM   #81
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,671
I see that MirageMemories and Patriots4Truth posted in this thread, but failed to spell out briefly what they think is the best or most likely description of the 9/11 events. MM, P4T, don't you have any idea, or are you just not comfortable coming forward with it? This thread is not meant to celebrate what you call "the official theory". I am little bored by that myself. When I created the thread I had hoped and expected to get a number of differing theories, spread out over a continuum of the possibilities. Unfortunately, all those who oppose some part or all of the "OCT" have remained silent, with two commendable exceptions:
  • JihadJane admitted she has no clue, which is ok - "I don't know" is a valid and often valuable answer
  • paloalto, a relatively new member, who argues, a detailed "LIHOP by CIA" scenario. I am waiting for him to dedicate a thread to this theory and its evidence

Why don't Miragememories, Patriots4Truth, Derek Johnson, Java Man, Tony Szamboti, RedIbis, cooperman, Childlike Empress or Femr2 have the courage to just tell us what their constructive ideas are? or don't they have any, 9 years after?
Oystein 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 9th October 2010, 01:08 AM   #82
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 17,361
What would you gain and how would you react if "one of us" would present you a detailed theory of what happened?
__________________
Audiatur et altera pars

Last edited by Childlike Empress; 9th October 2010 at 01:10 AM.
Childlike Empress 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 9th October 2010, 01:22 AM   #83
Clarrisani
Scholar
 
Clarrisani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 61
My turn.

1) Four very real civilian planes were hijacked and crashed into WTC 1 & 2, the Pentagon, with the fourth at Shanksville after a passenger uprising forced the pilot, Ziad Jarrah, to follow the back up plan should such a thing occur and send the plane into the ground.

2) The Twin Towers were both hit by planes. The cause of the collapse was a combination of the structural damage caused by the crashes combined with the heat of the fires causing the structure to weaken and ultimately fail.

3) WTC7 was severely damaged by the collapse of the North Tower which gouged out a large portion of the South side of the building. This, combined with the design of WTC7 and the free burning fires caused the collapse. The interior of the building gave way first, and with the absence of the interior structure the outer walls fell inward.

4) Pentagon was hit by a plane, as supported by the evidence of the wreckage and eyewitness testimonies.

5) As pointed out in my response to (1), Shanksville was a plane that the hijackers were forced to ditch after the passengers fought to take back the plane.

6) Al Quaeda have various reasons for disliking America. If anything, they are extremists who have a corrupted and misguided interpretation of their religion and invoke hatred for America and her allies.

7) The Bush government was far too incompetent to pull off something like 9/11, and it would have been out of the bag well before it happened given the governments inability to keep secrets. I think more could have been done to take the warnings of an impending attack seriously, but as they say about hindsight...

8) I think there needs to be more investigations on how to properly handle a disaster such as this by looking at the confusion and problems with communication ect on 9/11. As more information is revealed and the technology gets better things will become clearer as to how things happened the way they did and how they can be prevented in future. There is no such thing as too much information after all.
Clarrisani 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 9th October 2010, 03:18 AM   #84
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,671
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
What would you gain and how would you react if "one of us" would present you a detailed theory of what happened?
What a question... I am curious, and that would quench my curiosity. Good enough?
I like to know where people are coming from, what world view is at the base of what they write in this subforum.
After all, this entire subforum is about "9/11 Conspiracy Theories", which conventionally means "any and all theories about 9/11 except the common narrative". Many of us have asked for such a theory. I am not aware of anybody actually offering one, a complete theory. But you must have some sort of complete narrative - I think.


And anyway: What would you loose if you presented your theory?



How would I react? Easy.
a) In this thread: Thank you for your contribution, and maybe ask a couple of question to clarify understanding. Look at the way I reacted to paloalto.
b) Privately: Identify common ground, identify disagreement, identify holes (that would make the theory less than complete), and encourage the poster to elaborate on the discrepancies to improve the theory. I am of course convinced that the theory will not make a passing grade, but I will know only when the excercise has been completed.
Oystein 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 9th October 2010, 05:12 AM   #85
MaGZ
Philosopher
 
MaGZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,914
Originally Posted by Bullwinkle2009 View Post
Hi, I think the Islamic insurgency planned and executed the attack in an attempt to get the USA to retreat back into isolationist polices and thus open the door so they could wage war against the Islamic regimes supported by the USA. Israel is a red herring they use to recruit. They do not give a hoot about our way of life other then where they believe it is being adopted inside countries they consider to be Islamic.
Whether or not they harbor ambition toward global conquest remains to be seen. (no top leader of the Insurgency has ever stated this as a goal Wacko Islamics living in the West sometimes voice this rhetoric but they have no connection. (otherwise they would be locked up) It's just how they sell their books and videos.
Damage from impacts and fires destroyed the buildings. There was no warning that could have prevented the attacks once the perpetrators were within the USA. GW Bush had an adgenda prior to 9-11-2001 that did not include a Global War or any military action outside the USA. But like all of us he had to learn "Life is all the things you end up doing when you are really trying to do something else"
The Israeli Art Student spies had the hijackers under surveillance and could have told the US everything they learned if they wanted to.
MaGZ 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 9th October 2010, 05:21 AM   #86
MaGZ
Philosopher
 
MaGZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,914
MaGZ’s theory on 9/11

AQ did it.

The Mossad was operating in the US under the guise of Israeli Art Students watching the hijackers at the request of US intelligence agencies. The Mossad reported back to the Americans but did not relay any information they learned indicating a coming attack. The US was caught by surprise on 9/11 because Israel did not tell what they knew.

KSM ran the operation in the US, and meet groups of hijackers in Las Vegas on several occasions.

The plan on 9/11 by AQ was to takeout the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, the White House and/or Congress and the assassination of President Bush in Florida. Other planes were part of the attack but were grounded. These would-be hijackers ran from the grounded planes.

The planned Bush assassination plot that morning was similar to the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud in northern Afghanistan two days earlier with the use of a exploding camera. The explosives in the camera was prepared days earlier by Atta using a "Mother of Satan" explosive mixture.

There was no military stand-down. One passenger plane was almost shot-down over Ground Zero (one missile hitting WTC 7 and another flying into the Hudson River). The hijacked plane over Pennsylvania was downed by an American fighter.

WTC 7 was a controlled demolition to prevent the building from toppling over into the search and rescue area.

The anthrax attacks that followed over the next few weeks was a Mossad operation that was initially planned as early as 1998 but was moved up as a follow-on to the 9/11 attacks. The anthrax attacks were designed by Israel to get the US to attack and invade Iraq. The anthrax came from their bio-weapons lab in Nes Ziona.

Last edited by MaGZ; 9th October 2010 at 05:53 AM.
MaGZ 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 9th October 2010, 07:47 AM   #87
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,705
Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
MaGZ’s theory on 9/11

AQ did it.

The Mossad was operating in the US under the guise of Israeli Art Students..................
See. That wasn't so hard (other "truthers" note). Now what you have to do is fill in the holes (mostly hows) and put it together into something that flows with the available evidence. Try to avoid the "it's planted/faked" because that leads to much deeper layers involving many more people thus making the complication factor unbelievable.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 9th October 2010, 11:55 AM   #88
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,671
Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
MaGZ’s theory on 9/11
Oh cool, thx.

Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
AQ did it.

The Mossad was operating in the US under the guise of Israeli Art Students watching the hijackers at the request of US intelligence agencies. The Mossad reported back to the Americans but did not relay any information they learned indicating a coming attack. The US was caught by surprise on 9/11 because Israel did not tell what they knew.

KSM ran the operation in the US, and meet groups of hijackers in Las Vegas on several occasions.

The plan on 9/11 by AQ was to takeout the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, the White House and/or Congress and the assassination of President Bush in Florida. Other planes were part of the attack but were grounded. These would-be hijackers ran from the grounded planes.

The planned Bush assassination plot that morning was similar to the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud in northern Afghanistan two days earlier with the use of a exploding camera. The explosives in the camera was prepared days earlier by Atta using a "Mother of Satan" explosive mixture.

There was no military stand-down. One passenger plane was almost shot-down over Ground Zero (one missile hitting WTC 7 and another flying into the Hudson River). The hijacked plane over Pennsylvania was downed by an American fighter.

WTC 7 was a controlled demolition to prevent the building from toppling over into the search and rescue area.

The anthrax attacks that followed over the next few weeks was a Mossad operation that was initially planned as early as 1998 but was moved up as a follow-on to the 9/11 attacks. The anthrax attacks were designed by Israel to get the US to attack and invade Iraq. The anthrax came from their bio-weapons lab in Nes Ziona.
I highlighted the parts that are new to me, not covered by evidence known to me, or that I feel need a little expanding upon.

Are there threads anywhere created specifically to provide reasons why you hold these opinions?
Oystein 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 9th October 2010, 02:05 PM   #89
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,766
Give'em hell Oystein!
AJM8125 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 9th October 2010, 04:11 PM   #90
Clarrisani
Scholar
 
Clarrisani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
MaGZ’s theory on 9/11

AQ did it.
Indeed they did.

Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
The Mossad was operating in the US under the guise of Israeli Art Students watching the hijackers at the request of US intelligence agencies. The Mossad reported back to the Americans but did not relay any information they learned indicating a coming attack. The US was caught by surprise on 9/11 because Israel did not tell what they knew.
Evidence? The FBI and CIA were not in communication about the attacks, and the Mossad were not involved. It was German intelligence that were watching the Hamburg Cell, but did not forward the information on to America. The Hamburg Cell was not connected to Israel at all, nor were any of the hijackers.

Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
KSM ran the operation in the US, and meet groups of hijackers in Las Vegas on several occasions.
Again, evidence? Investigations have shown that the "Muscle Hijackers" and Hani Hanjour joined the party late, and Hanjour at least only met the other hijackers in his apartment in New Jersey prior to the attacks. There is no mention of the "groups of hijackers" meeting in Las Vegas.

Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
The plan on 9/11 by AQ was to takeout the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, the White House and/or Congress and the assassination of President Bush in Florida. Other planes were part of the attack but were grounded. These would-be hijackers ran from the grounded planes.
You got the first part right. The plan was to take out the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, but also the Capital Building. Ramzi Binalshibh confirmed during interrogation that he had proposed the White House as a target to Mohamed Atta, but Atta rejected the idea in favour of the Capital Building as he deemed the White House to be too hard a target due to security.

There are no reports of an assassination attempt on Bush, and there were only four planes involved in the attack due to there only being four pilots: Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Hani Hanjour and Ziad Jarrah.

Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
The planned Bush assassination plot that morning was similar to the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud in northern Afghanistan two days earlier with the use of a exploding camera. The explosives in the camera was prepared days earlier by Atta using a "Mother of Satan" explosive mixture.
You are correct that Ahmaed Shah Massoud's death is connected to September 11, given that Osama bin Laden ordered the suicide attack and the fact Massoud had warned that he believed there was an attack pending. You are also correct that it was an exploding camera.

However, the rest of your statement is unfounded. There are no reports of Atta making any sort of explosive, and no "exploding camera" was ever discovered in Florida. It is most likely that the supposed "Bush assassination" is just a rumour.

Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
There was no military stand-down. One passenger plane was almost shot-down over Ground Zero (one missile hitting WTC 7 and another flying into the Hudson River). The hijacked plane over Pennsylvania was downed by an American fighter.
Evidence contradicts you. The military were forced to watch until the order to shoot was relayed through from the upper levels, which did not occur until after Flight 93 had crashed. There is no evidence of these missile that you speak of, and no one has reported seeing either fighter jets nor missiles in the vicinity of WTC. There is also no reports of one striking either WTC7 nor the Hudson river. In fact, there were no fighters in the vicinity of WTC at the time of the Towers being struck.

The plane at Shanksville was driven into the ground by Ziad Jarrah who was ordered to do so should anything go wrong with the plan. I'd say the heroic actions of the Flight 93 passengers is definitely something going wrong.

Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
WTC 7 was a controlled demolition to prevent the building from toppling over into the search and rescue area.
This laughable "theory" has been disproved so many times it's really not worth going into it again.

Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
The anthrax attacks that followed over the next few weeks was a Mossad operation that was initially planned as early as 1998 but was moved up as a follow-on to the 9/11 attacks. The anthrax attacks were designed by Israel to get the US to attack and invade Iraq. The anthrax came from their bio-weapons lab in Nes Ziona.
Unfounded. Investigations found Dr. Bruce Edwards Ivins to be behind the attacks.

Last edited by Clarrisani; 9th October 2010 at 04:15 PM.
Clarrisani 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 10th October 2010, 10:08 AM   #91
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,671
Clarrisani,

in contrast to the usual habits and traditions of skeptics at JREF, I have asked posters in the OP to please refrain from debating the merits of the theories presented in this thread. This can be done in other threads that are dedicated to the theory in question.

Also, I specifically asked for a summary of poster's theories without them supplying any evidence, for the sake of brevity and clarity.

Useful discussion within this thread would mainly seek to clarify the presented theories (rid them of parts that or not theory, fill gaps), and clarify the intention of the thread. Other than that, this is only a roll-call. Ideally, every poster (including myself) would post only once: her or his complete and abbreviated theory.
Oystein 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 10th October 2010, 01:58 PM   #92
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
The Mossad was operating in the US under the guise of Israeli Art Students watching the hijackers at the request of US intelligence agencies.
Wait... I thought they were pretending to be a moving company?
Can't you guys keep your stories straight?
Sword_Of_Truth 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 10th October 2010, 11:09 PM   #93
Clarrisani
Scholar
 
Clarrisani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Also, I specifically asked for a summary of poster's theories without them supplying any evidence, for the sake of brevity and clarity.
Sorry, bad habit. The English teacher part of me automatically links theories and evidence together.
Clarrisani 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 11th October 2010, 12:23 AM   #94
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,671
Originally Posted by Clarrisani View Post
Sorry, bad habit. The English teacher part of me automatically links theories and evidence together.
Smile, mate!
I feel that urge myself often and have to suppress it consciously
Oystein 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 11th October 2010, 03:00 PM   #95
MaGZ
Philosopher
 
MaGZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,914
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Oh cool, thx.



I highlighted the parts that are new to me, not covered by evidence known to me, or that I feel need a little expanding upon.

Are there threads anywhere created specifically to provide reasons why you hold these opinions?
I challenge you to do what I did, namely Internet searches and connecting the dots.
MaGZ 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 October 2010, 01:56 PM   #96
laursaurus
New Blood
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9
The Popular Mechanics investigation of how each of the 3 towers fell is well done.
Flight 93 could have exploded in the air before it crashed. The hijackers claimed to have a bomb. If the passengers successfully thwarted the hijack, they could have detonated it.
The military was ordered to shoot down any additional hijacked planes any planes that did not comply with FAA's orders to immediately ground all air-traffic. I remember an interview with Hilliary Clinton the following week where they asked her what she thought about that order. She said she definitely would not have questioned that decision. Remember, she had been First Lady for 8 years and was very familiar with serious nature of national security.
I'm glad these Truthers are fading into obscurity. A few years ago, I was really upset that these jerks were going to rewrite history. Al Quaeda gloated over their success. If they were innocent, they would be fools to make themselves sitting ducks for retaliation.
laursaurus 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 14th October 2010, 04:09 PM   #97
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 626
re: What are my conclusions if indeed this information is accurate and reliable?

re: What are my conclusions if indeed this information is accurate and reliable?

Quote:
Well we have to assume a lot of different sources there are accurate and reliable.

If we do, let’s say, then after all of your reading, what are your conclusions?

TAM
Note as you can see I do not assume that any of these source were accurate, but used, consistency between the different reports, and logic, to figure out what were the reports or parts of these reports that were accurate and which ones were inaccurate, and then even why they were inaccurate, for each and every report. Once you aggregated all of the reports I had listed it was possible to tell, what part of each report was accurate and what part had been obfuscated or had left out important details, and even why they had been obfuscated!

An example is when the 9/11 Commission report was trying to explain why the two photos of from Kuala Lumpur were shown to the joint source, one photo of Mihdhar and one photo of an unidentified person. It said that the CIA thought that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Khallad Bin Attash, might be one and the same person. The DOJ IG report said that "CIA overseas personnel" had requested the photos of Mihdhar and Khallad taken at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting so these could be shown to the FBI/CIA joint source. The account of Ali Soufan said Soufan had sent a request to the CIA Yemen station in November 2000, asking if the CIA had any information on Khallad or on any al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur. The document “CIA Requested Changes to [9/11 Commission] Staff statement #10”, said a cable describing the identification by the joint source of Khallad Bin Attash in the Kuala Lumpur photos had been sent to the Yemen station in January 2001.

From these documents we know that Soufan had made an official request to the CIA Yemen station in November 2000 for any information the CIA had on Khallad Bin Attash, described as the master mind of the Cole bombing, or any information the CIA had on any al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur, and attached to this request was a passport photo of Khallad that Soufan had gotten from the Yemen authorities that had arrested Fahad al-Quso. Fahad al-Quso had been arrested by the Yemen authorities and claimed he was bringing money to Khallad in Kuala Lumpur, when he got stuck in Bangkok on January 6, 2000. Thailand would not let him leave Bangkok for Malaysia due to problems with his travel papers. Since the cable describing the identification of Khallad from the Kuala Lumpur photos went to the Yemen station, we know that the DOJ IG “CIA overseas personnel” who had requested the photos from the Bin Laden unit, of Khallad and Mihdhar taken at the Kuala Lumpur meeting, were in fact the CIA Yemen station.

While all of these accounts are of the same incident, and say almost the same thing, each report leaves out critical details, it appears to make it all but impossible for the American people to put this account back together again in one place. The 9/11 Commission accounts says that the CIA wanted to show the photos of Mihdhar and an unidentified person, to hide the fact that the request was for two photos one of Mihdhar and one of Khallad taken at Kuala Lumpur, and left out that this request had come from the CIA Yemen station because of an official request by FBI Agent Ali Soufan. The 9/11 Commission report was trying to hide FBI Agent Soufan and what the Yemen station and the CIA Bin Laden unit knew, to hide a clear case of criminal obstruction of FBI Agent Soufan and his investigation of the Cole bombing by both the CIA Yemen station and the CIA Bin Laden unit.

The 9/11 Commission also wanted to keep secret the fact that when Khallad was identified on January 4, 2001 by the FBI/CIA joint source, and this information sent to the CIA Yemen station, the CIA Bin Laden unit, and was known by the CIA Pakistan Station since it was their handler for the joint source that was with the joint source when the identification of Khallad from the Kuala Lumpur photo was made, that this information was intentionally not given to FBI Agent Ali Soufan in February 2001 when Soufan flew out to re-interview the joint source. The 9/11 Commission it appears did not want any suggestion of a wide ranging criminal conspiracy at the CIA to hide this critical information from an ongoing FBI criminal investigation into the murder of 17 US sailors, to block any further criminal investigations into this matter, which might have lead to persons much higher up who had been directing this CIA criminal conspiracy.

The 9/11 Commission statement that this identification was done because the CIA thought Khallad and Khalid al-Mihdhar might be one and same person, most likely is out and out criminal conduct by the 9/11 Commission by placing clearly misleading statements in the 9/11 Commission report. Since the CIA had the passport photos of Mihdhar and Khallad and even had the Kuala Lumpur photos of these two terrorists at the time the 9/11 Commission report says the CIA thought these two were the same person, there is no conceivable way the CIA would have thought that Mihdhar and Khallad were one and the same person, and the 9/11 Commission knew they were placing this erroneous and misleading statement in their report to cover up out and out criminal conduct at the CIA, and this example is but one of many.

Even today as seen by the comments in this thread, it is clear that people think the CIA just did not share information with the FBI, not that they withheld critical information in a wide ranging criminal conspiracy. Right in this blog, some people say this conclusion is all nonsense when all of this information actually comes right out of official US documents.

It is also obvious that the DOJ IG did not want to identify the “CIA overseas personnel” to make it nearly impossible to actually tell this request had come from the Yemen station, so the CIA Yemen station did not have to answer why they were requesting these exact photos, and their identification by the joint source, to hide the fact that it was FBI Agent Ali Soufan that was making an official request to them for this very information, and was being told none of this information existed at the CIA. Soufan’s official request makes not responding to his request or saying that the CIA had no information, a felony, out and out criminal obstruction of an ongoing FBI criminal investigation.

So what are my conclusions?:

It is clear that by putting these reports back together again that the facts are:

Both the CIA and FBI HQ knew a huge al Qaeda attack was coming in the summer of 2001 that would kill thousands of Americans.

By July 2001 information was sent in email, now publically available, to CIA managers, by CIA officer Tom Wilshire, that indicated that the people at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting were connected to the warnings of a huge al Qaeda attack that the CIA and FBI HQ had been receiving since April 2001. Wilshire specially called out the name Khalid al-Mihdhar in a second email, as a al Qaeda terrorists who would be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda operation, which by this time everyone at these agencies knew would be inside of the US.

By July 2001 the CIA management had denied Wilshire permission on two separate occasions to transfer the information that the CIA had on the Kuala Lumpur meeting, and the fact that the CIA knew that Khallad had been at that meeting with Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi planning the Cole bombing, to the FBI criminal investigators on the USS Cole bombing.

The CIA and FBI HQ had kept secret on many occasions the information that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with Walid Bin Attash actually planning the Cole bombing. These times were Ali Soufan’s request to the Yemen station in November 2000, Soufan’s request to the Director of the FBI in November 2000, Soufan’s request to the CIA in April 2001, the meeting in New York in June 11, 2001, and even when the Cole bombing investigators found out on August 28, 2001 that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US.

On August 22, 2010 FBI Agent Margaret Gillespie, working at the CIA Bin laden unit, found Mihdhar and Hazmi inside of the US and gave this information to CIA officer, Tom Wilshire, who had been moved over to be Deputy Chief of the FBI ITOS unit and to FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi. This information was sent on August 23, 2001 to the FBI, although not to Bongardt and his team, and to the rest of the CIA when Gillespie forced the CIA Bin Laden unit to issue a worldwide alert for Mihdhar and Hazmi. The FBI HQ and CIA not only knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US on this date they also knew they were here to take part in a horrific al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands, but neither the CIA nor FBI HQ gave this information to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt or anyone else at the FBI that was in a position to stop this attack.

When Bongardt found out that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US on August 28, 2001, and even knew they were here to take part in yet another horrific attack, FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi shut down his investigation, claiming the information he would need would have to come from the NSA and this NSA information was forbidden to be given to FBI criminal investigators. But according to the NSA release now in the public records, a NSA release to allow Corsi to give this NSA information to the FBI Cole bombing investigators and FBI Agent Bongardt had already been approved on August 27, 2001. Furthermore Corsi, Wilshire the FBI HQ and the CIA knew by this time that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were not only connected to the east Africa bombings, but had also taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, crimes which made restrictions due to what was called “the WALL” null and void. They also knew that this information had no connection to any FISA warrant, the only reason NSA information could be denied, because of “the WALL”, from FBI criminal investigators.

When Bongardt asked that Corsi get a ruling from the FBI NSLU, on August 28, 2001, records show Corsi fabricated Attorney Sherry Sabol’s ruling that stated that Bongardt could take part in any investigation of Mihdhar and told Bongardt that the NSLU attorneys had ruled he could have nothing to do with any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. According to the DOJIG report, p 302, Corsi knew when she told Bongardt to shut down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, that the CIA had intentionally been hiding the photograph of Walid Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur, from him and his team. Corsi knew that this photo directly connected Mihdhar and Hazmi to Bin Attash and to the planning of the Cole bombing at Kuala Lumpur. Since the CIA had been hiding this photo and any and all information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting since November 2000, it now is apparent that the CIA did this to keep Bongardt and his team from getting enough information so they would be able to start any investigation Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Rod Middleton, Corsi’s boss, received the photo from the CIA of Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur on August 30, 2001, making it clear that Middleton was also part of this wide ranging conspiracy to criminally obstruct the investigation of the Cole bombing by Bongardt and his team.

When Bongardt’s investigation was shut down, this investigation was moved to the FBI intelligence unit in New York field office, and given to Robert Fuller, one of the least experienced FBI intelligence agents. On September 5, 2001, Corsi effectively shut down Robert Fullers’ intelligence investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, after he had failed to find any information on Mihdhar and Hazmi in the FBI data base and asked Corsi for permission to get Mihdhar’s credit card number from Saudi Arabian Airlines. Corsi refused to give him permission to even contact Saudi Arabian Airlines. Because there is no known reason to even begin to explain Corsi’s actions to deny Fuller permission to get this credit card number from Saudi Arabian Airlines, and since this clearly was going to make it impossible for Fuller to get anywhere with this investigation, before that attacks on 9/11, it appears that Corsi not only “let it happen”, but did everything possible to “make sure it would happen”.

But it is now clear that Corsi and Middleton acting under orders from higher level managers at both the FBI HQ and the CIA shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi when the CIA and FBI HQ knew that as a result thousands of Americans would be killed in an al Qaeda attack that could have been prevented had Bongardt’s investigation been allowed to go forward.

Because Corsi was acting under the direction of CIA officer Tom Wilshire and Wilshire had been acting under orders from higher level managers at the CIA, and he had denied twice in July 2001 from turning over the information he had from the Kuala Lumpur meeting, by his managers at the CIA CTC unit, plus the fact that the Cole bombing investigation had been criminally obstructed numerous times by many separate groups at the CIA, and even by the Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh, it is clear that the orders to allow the al Qaeda attacks that took place on 9/11 had to have come from the very highest levels of the CIA and FBI HQ.

You can draw a final conclusion from this information based on the two laws regarding actions that result in unintended consequences:

Law 1: There are no actions that result in unintended consequences, every result from actions at the CIA and FBI HQ was exactly as intended

Law2: Go back and read Law 1.

From this you can only conclude that the CIA and FBI HQ intentionally allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place, even when they knew these attacks would result in the murder of thousands of Americans, and that this result was approved by the very highest managers at both the FBI HQ and CIA, and undoubtedly by people well above this level.

Since all of the information that back up these conclusions is now found in the public domain, and almost all of it comes from official US government documents, much I have even sourced right at this blog, and the 9/11 Commission had access to this exact same information, it is also clear that the 9/11 Commission report was a complete and total fraud on the American people to hide the criminal conduct at the both CIA and the FBI HQ in intentionally allowing the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

Last edited by paloalto; 14th October 2010 at 04:14 PM.
paloalto 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 14th October 2010, 04:22 PM   #98
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
You are assuming that all of the investigative authorities in question, had access to all of the info you have presented, and had it in time to do something about it, but CHOSE not to reveal certain parts of their knowledge.

I do not see any proof above that all of the agencies had in their possession all of the info you mention.

I do not see proof that they INTENTIONALLY withheld such info.

Also, you lose me COMPLETELY, with the LAW 1, which is complete and utter ******

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 14th October 2010, 04:49 PM   #99
TexasJack
Penultimate Amazing
 
TexasJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,906
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post

Also, you lose me COMPLETELY, with the LAW 1, which is complete and utter ******

TAM
I actually felt that about law 2.


This is what a scattered mind looks like; taking facts in a rambling, overlong post, then leaping to a conclusion wider than Evel Knievel ever attempted.
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 15th October 2010, 01:30 AM   #100
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: 29,639
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
You can draw a final conclusion from this information based on the two laws regarding actions that result in unintended consequences:

Law 1: There are no actions that result in unintended consequences, every result from actions at the CIA and FBI HQ was exactly as intended

Law2: Go back and read Law 1.
That's actually the most useful part of the post. It encompasses the fundamental reason why conspiracist thinking is broken. The presumption that all consequences are intended and that the result of all actions is completely known in advance is, in fact, a basic feature of paranoia; patterns are discerned in areas where none exist.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
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 15th October 2010, 02:19 AM   #101
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,671
I asked Myriad (moderator) to split this thread, beginning with paloalto's post yesterday, so that finally paloalto gets his own thread for his theory. I had asked paloalto a couple of times already to please start a separate thread. He didn't. So lets hope the mods don't throw this into AAH.
Oystein 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 15th October 2010, 03:31 AM   #102
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
I guess that is fine, but the title of the thread is exactly what he posted to. I would think perhaps a RE-POST of his theory, given its own thread, but I think his posting is appropriate to the thread title.

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 15th October 2010, 04:38 AM   #103
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,671
Hmm no. Somehow he doesn't address the topic of planes, buildings and deaths. Which somehow seems to me is what this thread is about.
He elaborates on a part of the story before 9/11, which is an interesting topic worthy of its own thread. Which paloalto hasn't opened yet. So this may be the chance to do so, as I think it warrants discussion.
Oystein 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 15th October 2010, 05:08 AM   #104
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Your thread title is the vague "what do you thnk happened on 9/11 and why". Come on man, be a little leanient. Still...your thread...your call.

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 15th October 2010, 02:42 PM   #105
Bell
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 21,050
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I asked Myriad (moderator) to split this thread, beginning with paloalto's post yesterday, so that finally paloalto gets his own thread for his theory. I had asked paloalto a couple of times already to please start a separate thread. He didn't. So lets hope the mods don't throw this into AAH.
The entire 9/11 Conspiracy Forum belongs in AAH
Bell 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 8th August 2011, 09:58 AM   #106
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,671
I'd like to resurrect this thread on the occasion of Bill Smith's latest and failed attempt at telling "A full theory of 9/11" which boiled down to hinm admitting that he is only here "to elucidate the destruction of the buildings" and consequently is not interested in, and won't tell, a true full theory of what happened on 9/11, and why, and by whom.

Maybe some of the current flock of truthers and doubters of the common narrative, such as Marokaan, tmd2_1, Clayton_Moore or Major_Tom would like to give it a try? Please be still mindful of the OP here, which sets the rules "No discussion, please!", and "I would like everybody, debunkers and truthers alike, to state as consisely as possible your working hypothesis of what happened on 9/11, who did it, how they did it, and why they did it."

Thank you.
Oystein 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 8th August 2011, 10:19 AM   #107
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Pre-9/11:
OBL and his crew attempt to cause as many casualties as possible by using a truck bomb on the World Trade Center. Truck bombs are nothing new to Al Qaeda, yet this was too big a task for their best efforts. Due to the bombing, security is beefed up to the point where another similar attack on the WTC would be close to impossible. This causes Al Qaeda to rethink their next attack. Upon studying our strengths and weaknesses, they exploit a hole that allows them to, relatively safely, hijack aircraft.

9/11 - They Al Qaeda sends 19 terrorists to hijack 4 different aircraft. All four will be targeting the most high value targets we have in the Financial, Military, and Governmental arenas. Swift action makes this a hugely sucessful venture. Three of the four targets were hit, with the 4th target missed due to the actions of the passengers, who phoned loved ones in fight, who then relayed the day's events to the passengers.

In NYC, the massive damage to the twin towers, coupled with a massive fire doomed both buildings. Ancillary damage is massive.

In DC, portions of the Pentagon were equally damaged, and collapsed.

In Pennsylvania, Flight 93 crashes into a field when the passengers stage a revolt. It is assumed that the hijackers, after coming to grips that they will not reach their target, simply plow the aircraft into the ground. Targets are safely assumed to be either the Capitol Building, or the White House. I personally base this on the other targets, our #1 landmark of financial strenghth is the World Trade Centers. Our #1 landmark of our military strength is the Pentagon. For government, it is the Capitol Building.

Post-9/11
Bush fights back against terrorism across the board, naturally keying in on the middle east. Fighting the Al-Qaeda allies the Talliban in Afganhistan. The unpopular war in Iraq to me remains a mystery, as Saddam Hussein wasn't even a threat to the southern portion of his own country, much less the US. We can debate the pros and cons of our response on a different thread, but all evidence points to the 'official story' being correct. No other reasonable theory has ever been put forth.




Oops...forgot the "why"
Because they hate our freedom.
j/k

I think we have a tendancy to stick our nose in other people's business a bit too much. For us, for our society, we think we're doing the right thing. Groups like Al Qaeda don't think so.

Last edited by NoahFence; 8th August 2011 at 10:35 AM.
NoahFence 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 8th August 2011, 03:04 PM   #108
soliboy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I would like everybody, debunkers and truthers alike, to state as consisely as possible your working hypothesis of what happened on 9/11, who did it, how they did it, and why they did it."

Thank you.
Background:

Emboldened by the USSR's humiliating exit from Afghanistan and crediting themselves with a military victory and (less credibly) with toppling the Soviet regime, OBL and associates formed a loose organization dedicated to violent jihad to overthrow "oppressors" of Muslims, including secular Arab regimes and other enemies around the world.

Gulf War I and its aftermath was perceived by OBL and associates as US occupation of the "land of the two holy cites" with the consent of a corrupt Saudi monarchy. The USA assumed the position of enemy #1 for Bin Laden and associates, leading to repeated attacks on American interests (most notably the embassies and USS Cole).

Attacks:

By 1999 - 2000, AQ decided to launch a major attack inside the US.

KSM, who initially brought the idea to Bin Laden was given the Sheik's approval to proceed with his plan.

The 19 eventual hijackers, selected in Afghanistan to become "martyrs", were sent over the ensuing months to the US to prepare, train for and carry out the attacks. Unclear is whether there was intended at the beginning to be a 20th hijacker. Possibly Ramsi Binalshib. Logistical and financial assistance was provided to the 19 through KSM, Binalshib and others affiliated with AQ.

The 19 AQ-assigned operatives, on the morning of September 11, hijacked the four flights, UA93 and 175, AA11 and AA77, the hijack teams assigned in an order that is clear from the flight manifests.

AA11 was crashed into WTC1 by Mohammed Atta and UA175 by Marwan Al-Shehi crashed into WTC2 igniting massive fires across multiple floors and killing hundreds of innocents inside the airplanes and towers within an instant and scores of injuries outside from falling debris. Hundreds more innocents were trapped above the impact floors being increasingly overcome by the massive heat and thick smoke, leading many to jump or fall from the upper floors to the ground.

AA77 was crashed by Hani Hanjour into the Pentagon killing scores of innocent victims on the ground and airplane passengers, and igniting a massive fire inside the Pentagon, causing the section of building above the impact to collapse some minutes later.

In New York, the WTC towers, both heavily engulfed in flames, showed increasing signs that they were in danger of collapse.

The perimeter columns bowing inwards were clearly visible on the east side of WTC2, WTC1 was visibly leaning to the south with massive fire across the south face at the impact floors.

Finally the floors of WTC2 gave way at the impact area, pulling in the east wall and causing the upper section to tilt and smash through the building below. WTC1 followed in a similar manner shortly afterwards. Damage to the surrounding area was extensive.

On UA93, intended to be crashed into the US Capitol, the passengers became aware of what was happening through phone calls made to loved ones. They fought to try to take back control of the airplane and the hijackers inside the cockpit decided to crash it into the ground in Shanksville to prevent that. Ziad Jarrah pointed the airplane down and crashed it into the ground. All aboard were killed.

Oh and WTC7 collapsed some hours later as a result of the large fires inside it which could not be fought.

The why:

To cause maximum damage possible (including in a political sense) inside the USA. To terrorize the US public. And to provoke the USA into a war in Afghanistan.

I believe in the mind of Osama Bin Laden was the idea that the USA as a world power could be broken by military defeat in Afghanistan in the same way he believed his mujahideen broke the Soviet Union.

And by breaking the USA and its influence around the world, then everything else would follow. Israel could be routed, the secular Arab regimes toppled and the corrupt Saudi monarchy replaced.

And now he's dead.

I don't understand how some folks have so much difficulty figuring out the above.
soliboy 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 8th August 2011, 06:19 PM   #109
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I go first:

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that 4 civilian airplanes were hijacked and intentionally flown into 3 buildings. One crashed near Shanksville.

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that all the physical damage and loss of life on that day were a result of the plane crashes and the fires they started. No bombs, no additional incendiaries, no controlled demolition

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that the hijackers commaded the cockpits and flew the planes. No remote control.

About flights 11, 175 and 77, I have nothing additional to say.
I am certain, but allow residual doubt, that flight 93 crashed because its passengers resisted and violently iterferred, thus making the hijacker-pilot lose control and crash. No shoot-down to be sure.

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that the hijackings caught FAA and the military units that were on alert to defend the airspace by surprise, that they did everything they could to handle the situation, but were unable to do anything about the 4 planes. The main reasons for this inability were: Too little time; no contingency plans for such situations, resources too thinly spread; inadequate sharing of information between civilian and military agencies due to inadequate or incompatible technology.

I am fairly certain that some agencies of the US goverment had in their possession information that, if assembled and interpreted lucidly ahead of time, might have enabled them to intervene and bust the terrorists before 9/11. I can't judge fairly if the failure to do so is due to avoidable incompetence, or if the odds of finding such information in a sea of data are just prohibitively slim. I do not believe that anyone in these agencies knew of the plan and consciously decided not to interfere. I allow for the remote possibility that there are nefarious elements in the agencies who might be so inclined.

I am certain that the hijackers were a group of 19 or 20 Arabs, mostly from Saudi-Arabia, who were recruited by Al Quaeda, had the blessing of OBL. Among their leaders were KSM and Mohammed Atta. I admit that there is a little wiggle room for doubt, as KSM was abducted in secrecy and tortured. I want to take information presented by secret services with a good grain of salt.

I believe the suicide terrorists were personally motivated mainly by a general feeling of hatred and powerlessness towards the USA and the secualar west. Grievances in connection with the situation in Palestine, and other middle-eastern issues may also individually have placed a role. They were mostly devout muslims of a radical provenance who believed the preaching that they will go to paradise if killed in action against non-believers.

I believe OBL and Al Quaeda hoped to lure the USA into a violent and costly reaction. Secondary goals may have been to gain prestige and attract recruits and other support from muslims around the world, position Al Quaeda as the leading islamist resistance group, or stir up popular uprisings in Arab lands against regimes that Al Quaeda opposes (the monarchies of Saudi-Arabia and Jordan for example, or the Israeli occupations).

I am satisfied with the forensic investigations. They were humongous tasks, had do dive deep into unknown territories, and by and large the efforts were carried out honestly, competently and with sufficient thoroughness. With hindsight, some minor weaknesses may be lamented, such as the failure to investigate WTC7 with the same diligence as WTC1 and 2 were. It is my understanding that the debris of the twin towers was investigated more thoroughly, which undoubtfully is due to its containing so many human remains. There is no foul play.

I think the 9/11 Commission did a great job.

I believe the government, and some agencies thereof, have been too hesitant to allow reviews of their roles in desaster management and preparedness.

I lament that no co-ordinated debate has taken place about the political implications and the fall-out of the attacks. 9/11 has been abused by the Bush administration to further unrelated and sweeping agendas to the detriment of the American people.
Case closed and well stated.
BStrong 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 28th October 2011, 01:39 PM   #110
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I go first:

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that 4 civilian airplanes were hijacked and intentionally flown into 3 buildings. One crashed near Shanksville.

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that all the physical damage and loss of life on that day were a result of the plane crashes and the fires they started. No bombs, no additional incendiaries, no controlled demolition

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that the hijackers commaded the cockpits and flew the planes. No remote control.

About flights 11, 175 and 77, I have nothing additional to say.
I am certain, but allow residual doubt, that flight 93 crashed because its passengers resisted and violently iterferred, thus making the hijacker-pilot lose control and crash. No shoot-down to be sure.

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that the hijackings caught FAA and the military units that were on alert to defend the airspace by surprise, that they did everything they could to handle the situation, but were unable to do anything about the 4 planes. The main reasons for this inability were: Too little time; no contingency plans for such situations, resources too thinly spread; inadequate sharing of information between civilian and military agencies due to inadequate or incompatible technology.

I am fairly certain that some agencies of the US goverment had in their possession information that, if assembled and interpreted lucidly ahead of time, might have enabled them to intervene and bust the terrorists before 9/11. I can't judge fairly if the failure to do so is due to avoidable incompetence, or if the odds of finding such information in a sea of data are just prohibitively slim. I do not believe that anyone in these agencies knew of the plan and consciously decided not to interfere. I allow for the remote possibility that there are nefarious elements in the agencies who might be so inclined.

I am certain that the hijackers were a group of 19 or 20 Arabs, mostly from Saudi-Arabia, who were recruited by Al Quaeda, had the blessing of OBL. Among their leaders were KSM and Mohammed Atta. I admit that there is a little wiggle room for doubt, as KSM was abducted in secrecy and tortured. I want to take information presented by secret services with a good grain of salt.

I believe the suicide terrorists were personally motivated mainly by a general feeling of hatred and powerlessness towards the USA and the secualar west. Grievances in connection with the situation in Palestine, and other middle-eastern issues may also individually have placed a role. They were mostly devout muslims of a radical provenance who believed the preaching that they will go to paradise if killed in action against non-believers.

I believe OBL and Al Quaeda hoped to lure the USA into a violent and costly reaction. Secondary goals may have been to gain prestige and attract recruits and other support from muslims around the world, position Al Quaeda as the leading islamist resistance group, or stir up popular uprisings in Arab lands against regimes that Al Quaeda opposes (the monarchies of Saudi-Arabia and Jordan for example, or the Israeli occupations).

I am satisfied with the forensic investigations. They were humongous tasks, had do dive deep into unknown territories, and by and large the efforts were carried out honestly, competently and with sufficient thoroughness. With hindsight, some minor weaknesses may be lamented, such as the failure to investigate WTC7 with the same diligence as WTC1 and 2 were. It is my understanding that the debris of the twin towers was investigated more thoroughly, which undoubtfully is due to its containing so many human remains. There is no foul play.

I think the 9/11 Commission did a great job.


I believe the government, and some agencies thereof, have been too hesitant to allow reviews of their roles in disaster management and preparedness.

I lament that no co-ordinated debate has taken place about the political implications and the fall-out of the attacks. 9/11 has been abused by the Bush administration to further unrelated and sweeping agendas to the detriment of the American people.

All bolded I agree with. All highlighted I disagree with. All normal text i'm undecided.

Last edited by Zeuzzz; 28th October 2011 at 01:41 PM.
Zeuzzz 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 28th October 2011, 01:46 PM   #111
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
What would you gain and how would you react if "one of us" would present you a detailed theory of what happened?
We're as excited about "first time in history" things as truthers are.
NoahFence 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 28th October 2011, 02:11 PM   #112
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,671
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
All bolded I agree with. All highlighted I disagree with. All normal text i'm undecided.
What's your working theory instead in those areas that you disagree with?

Are you an agnostic towards bombs, additional incendiaries, controlled demolition, or do you believe there were bombs or additional incendiaries or controlled demolitions?

Who do you think the perpetrators were?
What do you think was their motivation and their prosimate and strategic goals?

What are your main criticisms of the major investigations?
Oystein 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 28th October 2011, 02:15 PM   #113
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,503
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I go first:

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that 4 civilian airplanes were hijacked and intentionally flown into 3 buildings. One crashed near Shanksville.

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that all the physical damage and loss of life on that day were a result of the plane crashes and the fires they started. No bombs, no additional incendiaries, no controlled demolition

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that the hijackers commaded the cockpits and flew the planes. No remote control.

About flights 11, 175 and 77, I have nothing additional to say.
I am certain, but allow residual doubt, that flight 93 crashed because its passengers resisted and violently iterferred, thus making the hijacker-pilot lose control and crash. No shoot-down to be sure.

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that the hijackings caught FAA and the military units that were on alert to defend the airspace by surprise, that they did everything they could to handle the situation, but were unable to do anything about the 4 planes. The main reasons for this inability were: Too little time; no contingency plans for such situations, resources too thinly spread; inadequate sharing of information between civilian and military agencies due to inadequate or incompatible technology.

I am fairly certain that some agencies of the US goverment had in their possession information that, if assembled and interpreted lucidly ahead of time, might have enabled them to intervene and bust the terrorists before 9/11. I can't judge fairly if the failure to do so is due to avoidable incompetence, or if the odds of finding such information in a sea of data are just prohibitively slim. I do not believe that anyone in these agencies knew of the plan and consciously decided not to interfere. I allow for the remote possibility that there are nefarious elements in the agencies who might be so inclined.

I am certain that the hijackers were a group of 19 or 20 Arabs, mostly from Saudi-Arabia, who were recruited by Al Quaeda, had the blessing of OBL. Among their leaders were KSM and Mohammed Atta. I admit that there is a little wiggle room for doubt, as KSM was abducted in secrecy and tortured. I want to take information presented by secret services with a good grain of salt.


I believe the suicide terrorists were personally motivated mainly by a general feeling of hatred and powerlessness towards the USA and the secualar west. Grievances in connection with the situation in Palestine, and other middle-eastern issues may also individually have placed a role. They were mostly devout muslims of a radical provenance who believed the preaching that they will go to paradise if killed in action against non-believers.

I believe OBL and Al Quaeda hoped to lure the USA into a violent and costly reaction. Secondary goals may have been to gain prestige and attract recruits and other support from muslims around the world, position Al Quaeda as the leading islamist resistance group, or stir up popular uprisings in Arab lands against regimes that Al Quaeda opposes (the monarchies of Saudi-Arabia and Jordan for example, or the Israeli occupations).

I am satisfied with the forensic investigations. They were humongous tasks, had do dive deep into unknown territories, and by and large the efforts were carried out honestly, competently and with sufficient thoroughness. With hindsight, some minor weaknesses may be lamented, such as the failure to investigate WTC7 with the same diligence as WTC1 and 2 were. It is my understanding that the debris of the twin towers was investigated more thoroughly, which undoubtfully is due to its containing so many human remains. There is no foul play.

I think the 9/11 Commission did a great job.

I believe the government, and some agencies thereof, have been too hesitant to allow reviews of their roles in desaster management and preparedness.

I lament that no co-ordinated debate has taken place about the political implications and the fall-out of the attacks. 9/11 has been abused by the Bush administration to further unrelated and sweeping agendas to the detriment of the American people.
My turn.
The highlighted stuff I am near enough to full agreement with Oystein.

The underscored material about terrorist motivations I am not interested in and my position is agnostic.

The italic material goes to political processes where standards such as "realistic" could be better than "did a great job".


I doubt that the political and terrorist motivational aspects are capable of any resolution in Internet discussions. Contrast with issues such as "Was it CD?" (WTC) "Was it the plane?" (Pentagon) and "Was it shot down?" (Shanksville) which are all technical questions and readily answered for reasonable honest people.

I see that Zeuzzz disagrees with "No bombs, no additional incendiaries, no controlled demolition". Removing the double negative it means he thinks there was CD. That is a technical question and readily lends to "proof" one way or another. (allowing for all the concerns about "proof' being used in a para-scientific context. My own view also that it is a case of engineering forensic analysis where the so called scientific method is not fully valid. But that is a separate topic ) Given the use of "proof" there can be no doubt on two aspects:
1) the weight of evidence is overwhelmingly "No CD"! AND
2) Nobody claiming CD has ever put forward a supportable reasoned hypothesis as to how CD could be achieved.

Last edited by ozeco41; 28th October 2011 at 02:17 PM.
ozeco41 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 28th October 2011, 02:35 PM   #114
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,705
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
All bolded I agree with. All highlighted I disagree with. All normal text i'm undecided.
Just out of curiosity. Why do you think the world should care what you think? Do you think there is a large group of people that share this view? (if yes) Why do you think most everyone is blissfully unaware of these issues? What are you doing to resolve these problems you have in understanding?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 28th October 2011, 06:16 PM   #115
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I would like everybody, debunkers and truthers alike, to state as consisely as possible your working hypothesis of what happened on 9/11, who did it, how they did it, and why they did it.
I'm really quite sick of the whole 9/11 "debate", but I thought I would take time to answer this one and I'll be short-and-sweet about it.

19 foreign nationals affiliated with Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda network hijacked 4 commercial aircraft. They prepared months, and in some cases years to carry out an attack conceptualized by three Baluchi, Abdul Hakim Murad (a pilot who trained in four American flight schools in the early 90's and did some of the initial planning for the 1993 WTC bombing), Ramzi Yousef (bomb-maker for the 1993 WTC bombing and other large scale terrorist plots) and Yousef's uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM). After the initial plot was foiled (Bojinka) in early 1995 and subsequent arrests of Murad and Yousef, KSM continued to develop the plot. At some point, in 1997 or 1998 he brought his idea to Osama Bin Laden and joined his network. After initially turning down the plan, by 1998 or 1999, OBL agreed to fund and supply manpower for the plot.

Beyond the execution and planning of the plot, there is significant evidence to indicate that the CIA and NSA had substantial clues and information related to the plot. There is also evidence that the CIA may have actively followed at least two of the hijackers into the US and actively withheld that information from the FBI. My personal belief is that these unorthodox actions by the CIA were known to upper levels of management, to include Tenet and Richard Clarke.

As to the actual details of what happened on 9/11, I think the 911 Commission pretty much got the specific chronology of events right. I have lingering questions as to whether or not secondary explosive devices were used (I never did buy the jet fuel cause for well established lobby and basement level explosions at the time of the event). I also do not subscribe to the NIST account for the collapse of WTC7, although I do not rule it out either. That does not mean much though because I am not a structural engineer and really not prepared (or qualified) to endorse any explanation for the collapse of WTC7. None-the-less, the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 in mind are best explained by the NIST hypothesis.

Most likely we will never know (at least not in my lifetime) exactly what the US intelligence community knew, and if LIHOP, exactly why they did. It could have been just sheer incompetence, or some other innocuous circumstance. It may have been something more sinister, such as anger at the Clinton Administration for undermining them in regards to OBL, or the Bush Administration's evident lack of interest (or both). However, at this point it is harder for me to believe that they did not know of the upcoming attack along with some of the participants involved, than it is for me to believe that they did not.

After the attack, I believe that there is evidence that some records related to the day's events were altered and/or destroyed. Well, I have their admission in writing that some key evidence was destroyed and from the FBI that some is "missing". So really that is not in dispute. The reasons for it could certainly be anything from just sheer stupidity, incompetence or something more sinister. However, at this point I can only speculate and quite frankly I don't have enough information to make a valid judgment one way or the other on the issue.

I still keep alert to new information as it becomes available out of historical curiosity. But as far as the "conspiracy" stuff goes, I really don't give a crap any more.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR 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 28th October 2011, 08:19 PM   #116
MaGZ
Philosopher
 
MaGZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,914
Shouldn’t I win an award for Best Original Screenplay?

See post 86.
MaGZ 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 28th October 2011, 10:59 PM   #117
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,231
Planes hijacked by terrorists, one each hitting WTC 1 and WTC 2, which collapsed from fires and structural damage, and, well, Oystein and the other rational posters have already covered it.

I would theoretically allow for two variations on this:

1. Flight 93 being struck by a missile fired from the Camp David area, during the passengers' attack on the hijackers. I haven't tried to figure out if this was even within range - I doubt it - and I have no idea if any such weapon was in place there.

2. Secondary devices set off at WTC 1 or WTC 2 - bombs designed to harm first responders and evacuating civilians. This scenario would include unidentified conspirators not among the hijackers.

Note that I don't actually believe either one happened, nor that there is any credible evidence for either. I'm just stretching the scenario a bit.

Also note that both are compatible with the "standard" narrative and require no complicity on the part of anybody but the terrorists. Not revealing a hypothetical SAM from Camp David could simply be a matter of operational security; it would take nothing away from the heroism of the passengers who doped out what was going on and decided to fight back against the bad guys.
sts60 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 29th October 2011, 04:11 AM   #118
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,422
Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
Shouldn’t I win an award for Best Original Screenplay?

See post 86.
Well, unlike other TM adherents, at least you put something forth.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz 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 29th October 2011, 05:48 AM   #119
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,471
Don't forget 9/11Investigator. He has a whole webpage with his fictional story. how911wasdone.blogspot.com, IIRC. He posted the link when I posted this topic a few years back. I guess you could conclude that neonazi holocaust deniers have less to risk, so why not write a fictional story about 9/11. It's what they do as a hobby - write fictional versions of horrific tragedy.

Last edited by carlitos; 29th October 2011 at 05:49 AM.
carlitos 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 29th October 2011, 06:55 AM   #120
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I go first:

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that 4 civilian airplanes were hijacked and intentionally flown into 3 buildings. One crashed near Shanksville.

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that all the physical damage and loss of life on that day were a result of the plane crashes and the fires they started. No bombs, no additional incendiaries, no controlled demolition

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that the hijackers commaded the cockpits and flew the planes. No remote control.

About flights 11, 175 and 77, I have nothing additional to say.
I am certain, but allow residual doubt, that flight 93 crashed because its passengers resisted and violently iterferred, thus making the hijacker-pilot lose control and crash. No shoot-down to be sure.

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that the hijackings caught FAA and the military units that were on alert to defend the airspace by surprise, that they did everything they could to handle the situation, but were unable to do anything about the 4 planes. The main reasons for this inability were: Too little time; no contingency plans for such situations, resources too thinly spread; inadequate sharing of information between civilian and military agencies due to inadequate or incompatible technology.

I am fairly certain that some agencies of the US goverment had in their possession information that, if assembled and interpreted lucidly ahead of time, might have enabled them to intervene and bust the terrorists before 9/11. I can't judge fairly if the failure to do so is due to avoidable incompetence, or if the odds of finding such information in a sea of data are just prohibitively slim. I do not believe that anyone in these agencies knew of the plan and consciously decided not to interfere. I allow for the remote possibility that there are nefarious elements in the agencies who might be so inclined.

I am certain that the hijackers were a group of 19 or 20 Arabs, mostly from Saudi-Arabia, who were recruited by Al Quaeda, had the blessing of OBL. Among their leaders were KSM and Mohammed Atta. I admit that there is a little wiggle room for doubt, as KSM was abducted in secrecy and tortured. I want to take information presented by secret services with a good grain of salt.

I believe the suicide terrorists were personally motivated mainly by a general feeling of hatred and powerlessness towards the USA and the secualar west. Grievances in connection with the situation in Palestine, and other middle-eastern issues may also individually have placed a role. They were mostly devout muslims of a radical provenance who believed the preaching that they will go to paradise if killed in action against non-believers.

I believe OBL and Al Quaeda hoped to lure the USA into a violent and costly reaction. Secondary goals may have been to gain prestige and attract recruits and other support from muslims around the world, position Al Quaeda as the leading islamist resistance group, or stir up popular uprisings in Arab lands against regimes that Al Quaeda opposes (the monarchies of Saudi-Arabia and Jordan for example, or the Israeli occupations).

I am satisfied with the forensic investigations. They were humongous tasks, had do dive deep into unknown territories, and by and large the efforts were carried out honestly, competently and with sufficient thoroughness. With hindsight, some minor weaknesses may be lamented, such as the failure to investigate WTC7 with the same diligence as WTC1 and 2 were. It is my understanding that the debris of the twin towers was investigated more thoroughly, which undoubtfully is due to its containing so many human remains. There is no foul play.

I think the 9/11 Commission did a great job.

I believe the government, and some agencies thereof, have been too hesitant to allow reviews of their roles in desaster management and preparedness.

I lament that no co-ordinated debate has taken place about the political implications and the fall-out of the attacks. 9/11 has been abused by the Bush administration to further unrelated and sweeping agendas to the detriment of the American people.

That covers it for me.
sheeplesnshills 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 01:36 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.