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 29th October 2011, 07:33 AM   #121
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
OK Oystein, here goes... I'm using your template and adding points of difference. I'm also providing links to some of my videos for more thorough explanations of some of these points.

4 civilian airplanes were hijacked and intentionally flown into 3 buildings. One crashed near Shanksville.

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 in 98% agreement with the technical findings of NIST, and also agree with the findings of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, which adds that thermal contraction of the beams after the fires left each area could have further destabilizedd the structures. I also recognize that there is wiggle room on some of the details, since in Building 7 especially the structural issues were mostly invisible behind the perimeter walls. part 1 how collapses initiated http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-WQdmpdM_g
part 13 Building 7 NIST introduction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv06L...eature=related


The hijackers commandeered the cockpits and flew the planes. No remote control. However, we don't know what happened inside the cockpit of Flight 93, where a passenger and hijacker may have been fighting for control of the plane. No shootdown.

Gary Hart and others repeatedly warned us of our woeful lack of preparation for a terrorist attack on US soil. In the late 90s, Hart actually asked a top Air Force brass if they would shoot down an errant passenger plane if it were headed into the White House, and he admitted that protocol or not, they would not have the nerve to shoot it down. Inadequate sharing of information between civilian and military agencies due to inadequate or incompatible technology was only part of the problem. No one in the chain of command would have been willing to order a shootdown of a passenger jet full of US citizens. part 12 conclusion twin towers portion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJhy2...eature=related

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 am an extremely skeptical agnostic on the question of whether someone maliciously allowed the attacks to take place. I have not researched this, but I wonder if it's possible if Cheney had the power, with a small handful of evildoers, to orchestrate a let-it-happen scenario to fulfill their Project for a New American Century goals of total military dominion through endless war. I seriously doubt this, because among other things, during the Iraq War, even Cheney admitted they had found no WMDs, a level of honesty that is higher than the kind complete dishonesty I would expect from a traitor. Plus he would have been literally executed if caught.

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 have not studied the 9/11 Commission's work nearly as much as the NIST Report because my research has focused on the technical questions of controlled demolition vs natural collapse. However, I am also deeply uncomfortable with the charges of "designed to fail" and other strong statements made by the members of that commission. The Bush Administration didn't want a 9/11 Commission at all, and was not entirely forthcoming. I believe, but have no proof, that this was a Cover Your Ass move to hide governmental incompetence, which gave the government less credibility. This is why, even though I could find no scientific evidence for controlled demolition, I remain on the fence about some kind of new investigation. part 19 A New Investigation? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LnYfB4OaDM

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.

Sorry Oystein for my blatant plagiarisms. Also I hope that Childlike Empress and others will take a chance and lay out their beliefs too. Oystein is doing a great job of moderating this thread and keeping it respectful. I for one just want to hear what you all have to say in a less contentious environment.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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, 08:34 AM   #122
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,985
Here is chrismohr's payback for taking from Oystein, I will do the same to him with my own modifications (highlighted / strikeouts):

Quote:
4 civilian airplanes were hijacked and intentionally flown into 3 buildings. One crashed near Shanksville.

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 in 98% agreement with the technical findings of NIST, and also agree with need to review the findings of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, which adds that thermal contraction of the beams after the fires left each area could have further destabilizedd the structures. I also recognize that there is wiggle room on some of the details, since in Building 7 especially the structural issues were mostly invisible behind the perimeter walls. part 1 how collapses initiated http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-WQdmpdM_g
part 13 Building 7 NIST introduction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv06L...eature=related


The hijackers commandeered the cockpits and flew the planes. No remote control. However, we don't know what happened inside the cockpit of Flight 93, where a passenger and hijacker may have been fighting for control of the plane. No shootdown.

Gary Hart, Richard Clarke and others repeatedly warned us of our woeful lack of preparation for a terrorist attack on US soil. In the late 90s, Hart actually asked a top Air Force brass if they would shoot down an errant passenger plane if it were headed into the White House, and he admitted that protocol or not, they would not have the nerve to shoot it down. Inadequate sharing of information between civilian and military agencies due to inadequate or incompatible technology was only part of the problem. No one in the chain of command would is on record stating that they have been willing to order a shootdown of a passenger jet full of US citizens. part 12 conclusion twin towers portion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJhy2...eature=related

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 am an extremely skeptical agnostic on the question of whether someone maliciously allowed the attacks to take place. I have not researched this, but I wonder if it's possible if Cheney had the power, with a small handful of evildoers, to orchestrate a let-it-happen scenario to fulfill their Project for a New American Century goals of total military dominion through endless war. I seriously doubt this, because among other things, during the Iraq War, even Cheney admitted they had found no WMDs, a level of honesty that is higher than the kind complete dishonesty I would expect from a traitor. Plus he would have been literally executed if caught. Also, the neo-cons in the White House sought immediately to try to find a way to tie the tragedy to Iraq, demonstrating an apparent lack of foreknowledge.

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 have not studied the 9/11 Commission's work nearly as much as the NIST Report because my research has focused on the technical questions of controlled demolition vs natural collapse. However, I am also deeply uncomfortable with the charges of "designed to fail" and other strong statements made by the members of that commission. The Bush Administration didn't want a 9/11 Commission at all, and was not entirely forthcoming. I believe, but have no proof, that this was a Cover Your Ass move to hide governmental incompetence, which gave the government less credibility. This is why, even though I could find no scientific evidence for controlled demolition, I remain on the fence about some kind of new investigation. part 19 A New Investigation? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LnYfB4OaDM I believe that the White House briefing report in August shows that the Bush administration should have known a threat existed, however the neo-con focus on Iraq and stated dismissal of non-state actors blinded them

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.
I finally add that I do not see the benefit of reopening the investigation, because at this point with nothing further to substantially be gained from physical evidence, witnesses would either plead the 5th or "not recall", and it would only serve to reopen old wounds from a past administration that is already out of power.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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, 09:14 AM   #123
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Here is chrismohr's payback for taking from Oystein, I will do the same to him with my own modifications (highlighted / strikeouts):

I finally add that I do not see the benefit of reopening the investigation, because at this point with nothing further to substantially be gained from physical evidence, witnesses would either plead the 5th or "not recall", and it would only serve to reopen old wounds from a past administration that is already out of power.
So in other words, regardless of the truth, you would rather support a cover up, because you feel a full investigation would be; too difficult, too unpleasant, and too much of a hassle.

MM
Miragememories 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, 09:18 AM   #124
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
So in other words, regardless of the truth, you would rather support a cover up, because you feel a full investigation would be; too difficult, too unpleasant, and too much of a hassle.

MM
How can he support a cover up, when there IS no coverup?
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 29th October 2011, 09:21 AM   #125
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,985
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
So in other words, regardless of the truth, you would rather support a cover up, because you feel a full investigation would be; too difficult, too unpleasant, and too much of a hassle.

MM
No, I believe an investigation would not work. No more physical evidence, plus pleading the 5th. It would be beating a dead horse.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 29th October 2011 at 09:22 AM.
LSSBB 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, 09:57 AM   #126
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
I guess we'll have to wait another indetermined amount of time for MM to actually give us his version of the entire day's events.

MM - do you even know why that's important?
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 29th October 2011, 10:42 AM   #127
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
So in other words, regardless of the truth, you would rather support a cover up, because you feel a full investigation would be; too difficult, too unpleasant, and too much of a hassle.

MM
Agree with MM on this one. I am on the fence, but at the very least a new investigation might reveal a coverup of governmental incompetence, and may well also help us understand the abuses of executive privelege that occurred (and are now part of the executive's power structure). This investigation will not happen, however. It is a political impossibility in my honest opinion. UNLESS we find thermite in the dust, whch I really really really really really really really really doubt, but just in case I am pursuing that lead, as many of you know. MM did you ever imagine we'd agree at least a little?
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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, 05:51 PM   #128
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,985
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
No, I believe an investigation would not work. No more physical evidence, plus pleading the 5th. It would be beating a dead horse.
...and to clarify, by reopening old wounds, I meant from the nations perspective, not the previous administration. I would not be sorry to see them suffer from getting dragged to the "long green table" again.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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, 06:40 PM   #129
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Before you do a re-investigation, you must have some idea what you want to investigate.

Must. Have. This is non-negotiable. So that means you must have some alternate idea about what might have taken place. It doesn't have to be proven, but it does need to be self-consistent, and testable.

Personally, the only cover-up I can imagine would be a screwup comparable to Operation Gunrunner / Fast and Furious, i.e., a situation where the FBI knew about the al-Qaeda terrorists and had enough on them to arrest, but gave them a little more rope with which to hang themselves, then lost control. Even this is difficult for me to believe, however, given the comments from Michael Scheuer in particular. Nonetheless, this sort of thing can be investigated productively.

There are also obvious cover-ups of a few careers within NORAD, no doubt; that was already found and detailed by the 9/11 Commission. The argument here seems to be on whether they were punished enough. That doesn't really interest me.

Other items, like explosives in the Towers that went off at impact (??), shoot-downs of UA 93, etc., sorry, didn't happen. There is definitive evidence against all of that stuff, and no possible explanation tendered by anyone about how it might have happened. You want me to support a reinvestigation of that, you'd better come up with a plausible hypothesis. I've been asking for one for five years now.
R.Mackey 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, 11:40 PM   #130
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,422
Thing is... any investigation or shakeup of the intelligence community doesn't start/end with 911. I'm sure it would be a huge and interesting sub-set of an overall investigation, but there are dozens of other topics that would show the same examples of bureaucratic CYA, abyssmal inter-agency cooperation and communication, opportunities bungled, etc...

I think glorifying the 911 TM by using a "New 911 Investigation" as a leaping off point is misleading. The 911 intelligence failings were a symptom, not the disease.
__________________
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 30th October 2011, 12:33 AM   #131
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,503
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
I think glorifying the 911 TM by using a "New 911 Investigation" as a leaping off point is misleading. The 911 intelligence failings were a symptom, not the disease.
And that is the core reason why a "new investigation" would be fruitless.

Separate clearly the technical issues which were 9/11 specific and have long been answered. There is no easy boundary around the socio-political-intelligence agency range of problems. And they are not 9/11 specific. Simply the whole complex of political accommodations and pragmatics which is democratic governance dealing with complex issues.

The implicit premise of any call for a new investigation into 9/11 political management is flawed. Look at it two ways.

The first way is that it presumes that there is a boundary separating the "good" and the "bad"- unless such a clean separation exists the suggested "new investigation" is doomed to failure. And there ain't no such clear boundary.

The second way is the realistic one that working outwards from the presumed "bad" it is all varying shades of grey right out to the near white of the "good".

That reality serves the truth movement as we currently see it. If they got their "new investigation" it could never go far enough. Non of our trolls or truthers or change-coats will ever be specific as to what they want investigated. I don't want to credit them with intelligence but the trolls certainly manipulate that lack of precision "we want a new investigation with subpoena powers..." is the mantra BUT "to investigate what?" is never stated. (plus the separate issue of what magic a subpoena is supposed to perform).
Your insight is true:
Quote:
The 911 intelligence failings were a symptom, not the disease.
...well stated.
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 30th October 2011, 06:41 AM   #132
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,465
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Before you do a re-investigation, you must have some idea what you want to investigate.

Must. Have. This is non-negotiable. So that means you must have some alternate idea about what might have taken place. It doesn't have to be proven, but it does need to be self-consistent, and testable.
And that's exactly what this thread is about. Yet very few have stated a whole theory, and those few who have don't match what the usual 911TM narrative says.

Unfortunately, for the 911TM, "truth" is defined as "the Bush administration is guilty of the attacks", and they don't want a new investigation: they want an investigation that blames the Bush administration. Any result contrary to that will not satisfy them and they will ask for a new one. Therefore it's utterly pointless. I agree with both LSSBB and chrismohr. An investigation aimed at what the 911TM is pursuing is pointless. An investigation aimed at revealing government incompetence could be quite fruitful and useful.
pgimeno 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 30th October 2011, 08:29 AM   #133
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Ryan'as right of course that a new investigation must have a focus. a testable reality-based hypothesis. Gage has repeatedly asked me to sign his petition and I have refused, because his new investigation calls for a hard look at his controlled demolition theory. I am convinced there is no science behind that theory. As for the political side, on that I may be agreeable if someone came up with a clear focus that had not been looked at already. But this discussion is moot because there is no political will for such an investigation.

In the meantime I, like many others here, continue to hope for more explanations from 9/11 Truth people of what it is they think happened. Just a narrative of how you think the events unfolded that day.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 30th October 2011, 11:38 AM   #134
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
The US intelligence agencies, the FBI HQ and the CIA knew when Midhar and Hazmi were found inside of the US on August 22, 2001. that they were here to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans.

These same agencies had been keeping secret since November 2000, the fact that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000, planning the Cole bombing with Walid Bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing.

All of the terrorists at that meeting had been photographed by Malaysian intelligence and most identified as long time al Qaeda terrorists, and this information sent to the CIA, including Black and Tenet. The CIA was horrified when Bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing was positively identified on January 4, 2001 from the photograph of him at this Kuala Lumpur meeting, actually planning the Cole bombing with Mihdhar and Hazmi. This clearly meant that the CIA was culpable in the Cole bombing attack.

When FBI Agent Steve Bongardt accidentally found out that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, on August 28, 2001, and knew they were here to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that the CIA and FBI HQ had been warned about since April 2001, FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi shut down his investigation with the excuse, that the NSA information the Cole bombing investigators would need had not been approved to be shared with FBI criminal investigators. But a request for Dina Corsi had been approved the day before by the NSA, to provide the information from the Kuala Lumpur meeting to Steve Bongardt and his team.

When Bongardt protested and requested that Corsi get a legal ruling from the FBI NSLU, to see if he could take part in an investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi, he was told by Corsi on August 29, 2001 that NSLU had ruled that he and his team could have no part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. But in the 9/11 Commission report we are told that Sherry Sabol, the NSLU attorney, had ruled that Bongardt could take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Corsi emailed Bongardt on August 29, 2001 and said “If at such time information is developed indicating the existence of a substantial Federal crime, that information will be passed over the wall according to procedures."

But not only did Corsi know, as well as the CIA and FBI HQ, that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, and they also knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were long time al Qaeda terrorists connected to the east Africa bombings, and that Bin Laden had already been indicted for the east Africa bombings. Since these were crimes, there was no legitimate reason for Corsi, her boss Rod Middleton, and FBI HQ to shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

It is clear that Corsi was working under the direction of CIA officer Tom Wilshire, and that Wilshire had been denied twice in July 2001 from getting permission from his CIA managers, Blee, Black and Tenet, to turn the information on Kuala Lumpur over to the FBI Cole bombing investigators. Wilshire had sent email to these same CIA managers with his request on July 23, 2001 indicating that Mihdhar and by association Hazmi would be found at the next al Qaeda attack.

On August 23, 2001, CIA managers Blee, Black and Tenet were notified that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US. It is clear they knew that these terrorists were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans. So it is clear that when FBI HQ/CIA shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, many of the people at the CIA and FBI HQ , knew the result would be the murder of thousands of Americas in a huge al Qaeda attack as a direct result of their actions in shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

On September 11, 2001 Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi were on AA 77 that hit the Pentagon. It is also known that 10 tickets for the 9/11 hijackers were purchased with Mihdhar’s credit card. Given the connection between Mihdhar and many of the al Qaeda terrorists who took part in the attacks on 9/11 it is inconceivable that Bongardt and his team could not have prevented the attacks on 9/11 had their investigation not been shut down.
Great post. Thanks.
Clayton Moore 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 30th October 2011, 11:49 AM   #135
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,671
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Great post. Thanks.
Does this mean you agree with everything paloalto writes and clearly implies? And with everything of importance that he doesn't mention? I mean do you agree in particular that
- Al Quaida terrorists, not US or Israeli agents, did it?
- US agencies "only" let the AQ plan go forward?
- That plane crashes and fires, not CD or anything else, destroyed the WTC buildings?
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 30th October 2011, 11:59 AM   #136
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Does this mean you agree with everything paloalto writes and clearly implies? And with everything of importance that he doesn't mention? I mean do you agree in particular that
- Al Quaida terrorists, not US or Israeli agents, did it?
- US agencies "only" let the AQ plan go forward?
- That plane crashes and fires, not CD or anything else, destroyed the WTC buildings?
No.
Clayton Moore 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 30th October 2011, 12:24 PM   #137
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,370
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
No.
You need to stop lecturing us about being a real skeptic. You're just acting on faith yourself.
__________________
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 30th October 2011, 12:59 PM   #138
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,671
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
No.
If you don't agree with paloalto, why do you think his post was great?

What else do you think happened on 9/11? Who did what, how and why? You best full hypothesis, please!
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 30th October 2011, 01:46 PM   #139
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
If you don't agree with paloalto, why do you think his post was great?

What else do you think happened on 9/11? Who did what, how and why? You best full hypothesis, please!
What I agree with is that the LAW hampered investigations and let those people slide. Not so they could DO 9/11 but so they could be available to be blamed for it.
Clayton Moore 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 30th October 2011, 02:04 PM   #140
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,671
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
What I agree with is that the LAW hampered investigations and let those people slide. Not so they could DO 9/11 but so they could be available to be blamed for it.
But this is not what paloalto wrote.

Instead, paloalto is convinced of the following:
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Thanks for replying, and boiling your story down.

For clarity, may I ask if the following is a fair representation of your story? You seem to focus very much on those who did not prevent the attack und very little on those who carried them out. So:

You think that Al Quaeda operatives hijacked 4 planes, flew them into 3 buildings and 1 field, caused the destruction of the WTC complex thusly (impacts and fires leading to collapses), and did all this to kill as many Americans as possible to ... further whatever objectives they may have had. So far the story most of us subscribe to, right?

In addition, you believe that senior CIA managers, including Blee, Black and Tenet, obstructed CIA and FBI investigations into past Al Quaeda terror attacks and planning meetings, despite having information that they were probably planning attacks inside the USA. This prevented the arrest and/or closer investigation of two of the 19 hijackers. Had they been apprehended in time, the 9/11 attacks would likely have been prevented.

Correct?
Yes you are absolutely correct. ...
In other words: NO eplosives, NO CD, NO US or Mossad planning behind the attacks.
Do you copy, Clayton Moore? Paloalto does not at all subscribe to your theory of MIHOP.





Also, you forgot to reply to the second part of my post, and indeed the OP and the topic of this thread:

What else do you think happened on 9/11? Who did what, how and why? You best full hypothesis, please!

If you can't answer that, please say so, or stay out of this thread. Thanks.
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 30th October 2011, 02:43 PM   #141
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
But this is not what paloalto wrote.

Instead, paloalto is convinced of the following:

In other words: NO eplosives, NO CD, NO US or Mossad planning behind the attacks.
Do you copy, Clayton Moore? Paloalto does not at all subscribe to your theory of MIHOP.

Also, you forgot to reply to the second part of my post, and indeed the OP and the topic of this thread:

What else do you think happened on 9/11? Who did what, how and why? You best full hypothesis, please!

If you can't answer that, please say so, or stay out of this thread. Thanks.
Oystein, please stop with the love affair you are having with the formatting features.

Your chronic hi-lighting and use of color really gets tiresome and only makes reading unnecessarily difficult.

The content of your posts is hard enough to discern as it is, without the additional encumbrance created by your excessive text strutting.

Oh, regarding the OP, I think there is good reason to suspect Mossad involvement in 9/11, but I also believe such a thought is about as popular as a fart in a packed elevator.

Anytime Israel is introduced to this topic, the poster gets labeled as a holocaust denier, which for the record, I am not.

Nothing is sacrosanct when studying the truth of 9/11.

MM
Miragememories 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 30th October 2011, 02:55 PM   #142
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,671
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
...
Oh, regarding the OP, I think there is good reason to suspect Mossad involvement in 9/11,
This is the full extent of your complete theory of 9/11? And this is also your best hypothesis, the one you have the most confidence in? Please elaborate! This is 2% of a reply to the OP yet. Were there hijacked planes? Did they crash? What destroyed the towers, and how? What happened at the Pentagon and Shanksville? Who did what? And why - what were their motivations? MM, you surely have some best hypothesis, please do tell!

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
but I also believe such a thought is about as popular as a fart in a packed elevator.

Anytime Israel is introduced to this topic, the poster gets labeled as a holocaust denier, which for the record, I am not.
...
If you follow this thread, and read the OP ("Rule 1: no discussion!"), you will find that I strongly discourage posters from commenting on other people's theories; the only replies you will get from me are requests to clarify and complete your position.
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 30th October 2011, 03:03 PM   #143
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,370
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Nothing is sacrosanct when studying the truth of 9/11.
Nope. Even the possibility that it WASN'T an inside job, huh MM?
__________________
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 30th October 2011, 03:10 PM   #144
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
Nope. Even the possibility that it WASN'T an inside job, huh MM?
Careful you might be breaking one of Oystein's special rules?

MM
Miragememories 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 30th October 2011, 03:16 PM   #145
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,671
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Careful you might be breaking one of Oystein's special rules?

MM
Let this be my problem.

Your job now is to write up "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. You may indicate which parts of your hypothesis you consider hard fact, and which you only guess or are unsure about.

Here's a little checklist of the elements you might want to consider:
- 4 civilian planes - real? hijacked? remote controlled? crashed where?
- Twin Towers - plane crashes? Cause of collapse?
- WTC7 - cause of collapse?
- Pentagon - plane crash? Missile?
- Shanksville - plane? Shot down?
- If Al Quaeda: Do they hate our freedom? Mindless killers? Is it about Israel? Did they want the wars?
- If the government: Who was involved? Bush? Cheney? Any foreign agents? MIHOP or LIHOP?
- What about the investigations? 9/11 Commission? NIST? FEMA? FBI? Need a new one? if so, what objectives? Who should chair it?
"

This is quoting the OP at length.

If you are unable to reply to the OP, let this be known, and then get out of here, please, because your trolling is ruining yet another good thread.
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 30th October 2011, 03:54 PM   #146
George 152
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,012
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
No.
In spite of all the physical evidence that 911 was committed by 19 insane islamists
George 152 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 30th October 2011, 03:57 PM   #147
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,671
Originally Posted by George152 View Post
In spite of all the physical evidence that 911 was committed by 19 insane islamists
Please mind the OP: I want to encourage everyone to share their best hypothesis of who did what, how and why on 9/11, and specifically ask everyone to refrain from asking for or presenting evidence.
Clayton Moore has not yet given us a full account of what he believes was done on (and before and after) 9/11, so please join me in asking Clayton Moore kindly to write up his full hypothesis, and I will promise I will not bug him with demands for evidence or criticism of details.
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 30th October 2011, 04:20 PM   #148
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by George152 View Post
In spite of all the physical evidence that 911 was committed by 19 insane islamists
Think of it this way. 4 groups of young brown men boarding 4 commercial airliners with weapons without a hitch. 4 airliners completely unfettered by the US air forces. 3 major landmarks hit without a hitch with the Pentagon being the most protected building on the planet. Minimum casualties at the Pentagon because of the precise location attacked. 2 of the landmarks were completely destroyed.

That's enough evidence of collusion for any G rated whodunit.
Clayton Moore 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 30th October 2011, 04:26 PM   #149
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
I love the way Clayton poisons the well. Cool.
triforcharity 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 30th October 2011, 04:28 PM   #150
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,671
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
...
That's enough evidence of collusion for any G rated whodunit.
Clayton, the OP asks you specifically NOT to present evidence.
Instead this thread is meant for everybody to state what they think they have evidence for: Who did what, how and why on 9/11?

Please, Clayton, address the OP, or I will have to report you for deliberately derailing the thread.
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 30th October 2011, 04:35 PM   #151
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Clayton, the OP asks you specifically NOT to present evidence.
Instead this thread is meant for everybody to state what they think they have evidence for: Who did what, how and why on 9/11?

Please, Clayton, address the OP, or I will have to report you for deliberately derailing the thread.
no worries, he didn't post any evidence. But he did post his hypothesis , no? LOL
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith 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 30th October 2011, 04:38 PM   #152
MaGZ
Philosopher
 
MaGZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,914
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Oystein, please stop with the love affair you are having with the formatting features.

Your chronic hi-lighting and use of color really gets tiresome and only makes reading unnecessarily difficult.

The content of your posts is hard enough to discern as it is, without the additional encumbrance created by your excessive text strutting.

Oh, regarding the OP, I think there is good reason to suspect Mossad involvement in 9/11, but I also believe such a thought is about as popular as a fart in a packed elevator.

Anytime Israel is introduced to this topic, the poster gets labeled as a holocaust denier, which for the record, I am not.

Nothing is sacrosanct when studying the truth of 9/11.

MM
Mossad involvement or Mossad knowledge of 9/11?
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 30th October 2011, 04:41 PM   #153
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,671
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
...
Oystein is asking for speculation ...
I am asking for speculation if speculation is all that you have. In this case, wouldn't it be simply a matter of honesty if you could write here that all that you have is speculation?

At any rate, I take this as you admitting that all that you have is speculation. Thanks for playing.


I would be happier if truthers could write down the things they consider proven or better than speculation. As I said many times, the regular posters here must have a working hypothesis, and it is totally okay by me if it has some gaps and parts that people are less than sure about. Just indicate which parts you are more convinced about, and which less, and I will honour that. I think a much more productive debate can ensue if we have a clearer picture of what elements of the story we need to find out more about.
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 31st October 2011, 01:17 AM   #154
minnemouse
Critical Thinker
 
minnemouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 287
As for where I was personally on the 11th of Sept, 2001, we were sitting down in a meeting with the contracter, taking over our house that we just had built. My little sister called me, and got me pretty annoyed cause she knew this was an important meeting, and told me to put on the telly. My curiousity got the better of me, and I did so, and at first I thought it was footage from Bruce Willis´ last Die hard movie, before I realized this was the real thing. And since both my husband and I work with air traffic control, it felt even worse to see the planes hitting the buildings, and we realized very quickly that this was no accident. The rest of the meeting felt pretty unimportant after that, and we finished up quickly.

As for what I think happened on that day, I agree with Oystein. As for why, I think that Lawrence Wrights book "Al-Qaeda & the Road to 9/11" explains it all in a very good way. I also think that ONE good thing came out of this entire tragic event, and thats that the different agencies now work together, instead of working in competition with each other, like they did very much so before 9/11.

I could never believe in a CT around this case, simply because of the magnitude and the size of such a conspiracy; I just dont think that it could have been kept a secret:
Benjamin Franklin once said; "Two can keep a secret if one of them are dead".

Last edited by minnemouse; 31st October 2011 at 01:22 AM. Reason: Adding a few sentences on the end.
minnemouse 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 31st October 2011, 04:21 AM   #155
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,671
Some statistics on this thread

I carefully read through all posts up to #136, and compiled the following statistics:

69 distinct posters replied so far, among these
57 who more or less follow the common narrative
2 who remain somewhat on the fence (BCR and Zeuzzz)
7 Truthers (that's a loose lable, meaning people who disagree with important elements of the common narrative)
2 whose general leaning I don't know (applecorped and Marquis de Carabas). These didn't address the OP seriously
1 Mod posting as a mod
So that's 66 posters with a descernible serious opinion on the OP. In percent:
86% "debunkers"
11% "truthers"
3% "on the fence"
Among the 57 debunkers,
65% (37) provided a full, verbose account
5% (3) provided a partial account
4% (2) referenced a full account (e.g. "the 9/11 Commission Report") without detailing it themselves
26% (15) gave no account
Areas of disagreement are mainly the motivations of AQ, and the extent of incompetence and foreknowledge that might have been subject to some cover-up (yes, a handful of these "debunkers" are open to a slim possibility of "LIHOP")

Among the 2 fence-sitters,
50% (1)provided a full story
50% (1)provided a partial story
Among the 7 truthers,
43% (3) give us a full story
53% (4) give us no story
It is noteworthy that of the 3 full accounts offered by truthers, 2 are basically LIHOP stories which explain that
- AQ-terrorists did it
- WTC 1+2 collapsed due to planes and fires
- one of the two thinks WTC7 was demolished for benign reasons
Only one truther (14%, 9/11-investigator) told a story of controlled demoltions.

Where are all the truthers who believe in thermite and CD? Don't they have a story to tell? Don't they have convictions?

Last edited by Oystein; 31st October 2011 at 04:24 AM.
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 31st October 2011, 05:17 AM   #156
excaza
Illuminator
 
excaza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,593
Terrorists did it because they hate our freedom.
__________________
excaza 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 31st October 2011, 05:37 AM   #157
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
 
Sabretooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Wyoming, NY
Posts: 6,710
Originally Posted by excaza View Post
Terrorists did it because they hate our freedom.
Kind of.

It's more "Terrorists did it because they hate our allied relations with Israel".
__________________
--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

Sabretooth 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 31st October 2011, 09:13 AM   #158
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Where are all the truthers who believe in thermite and CD? Don't they have a story to tell? Don't they have convictions?
FWIW, your thread statistics closely track public polling about the Truth Movement -- support for any conspiracy theory at 10-15% (7 out of 66 here, or 10.5%), and among conspiracy believers, the majority are LIHOPers.

I think you've seen their best, and it's no wonder why.
R.Mackey 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 31st October 2011, 10:31 AM   #159
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
I thought that there was "no discussion" in this thread? Anyways ...

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
What's your working theory instead in those areas that you disagree with?

I don't have a working theory, as such. I just don't think that the video evidence and other evidence relevant to WTC7's collapse can be explained away without drastically contradicting many parts of the official account. Thus my agnosticism. Few other points too but not as major as that one.

As for the other bits I highlighted, I think to say that OBL's aim was "to lure the USA into a violent and costly reaction" is stupid. America's completely unnecessary over-reaction to the attacks (Afghanistan + Iraq) would have been nigh on impossible to anticipate. No doubt the war against both of these innocent countries could not have happened without the popular support the public gave due to 9/11. AQ did not plan to start wars and have hundreds of thousands of their people in their area killed, that's stupid even by their standards. OBL might have been a perfect front man, and indeed probably did harbor enough hatred to carry out such actions, but I think he lacked the power, support and capabilities to carry it out alone.

Despite the huge amount of documentaries all about every major disaster, plus huge amounts of 9/11 based ones, I've yet to see one that gives a detailed account of how this AQ plan worked, and how the logistics and main details of the plan were carried out. Paperwork will be even better than documentaries. Where did Bin Laden, his family and AQ get the large amounts of money + funding from, how did they have access to such security systems, wheres the video and security footage of the attackers (considering there will be thousands of airport videos)? etc.

These might even exist now, I'll be happy to read/watch any info anyone has on this.

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

Until I see an official working hypothesis that explains the collapses (specially of WTC7) I'm still in the middle. Not seen an official account that explains the collapse evidence yet, but neither a conspiracy theory that stands up to all scrutiny.

Quote:
Who do you think the perpetrators were?

Don't know.

Quote:
What do you think was their motivation and their prosimate and strategic goals?

Power.
Quote:
What are your main criticisms of the major investigations?

NIST report being as long as it was only covers up to pre-collapse conditions and ignores basically all post collapse modelling. The one column failure = total collapse model of WT7 seems ridiculous. And I guess the amount of money (or lack there-of) they used to fund the 9/11 report and further investigations seems insulting for such an important event are my main criticisms.

Last edited by Zeuzzz; 31st October 2011 at 11:58 AM.
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 31st October 2011, 11:18 AM   #160
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
I thought that there was "no discussion" in this thread? Anyways ...




I don't have a working theory, as such. I just don't think that the video evidence and other evidence relevant to WTC7's collapse can be explained away without drastically contradicting many parts of the official account. Thus my agnosticism. Few other points too but not as major as that one.

As for the other bits I highlighted, I think to say that OBL's aim was "to lure the USA into a violent and costly reaction" is stupid. America's completely unnecessary over-reaction to the attacks (Afghanistan + Iraq) would have been nigh on impossible to anticipate. No doubt the war against both of these innocent countries could not have happened without the popular support the public gave due to 9/11. AQ did not plan to start wars and have hundreds of thousands of their people in their area killed, that's stupid even by their standards. OBL might have been a perfect front man, and indeed probably did harbor enough hatred to carry out such actions, but I don't think he lacked the power, support and capabilities to carry it out alone.

Despite the huge amount of documentaries all about every major disaster, plus huge amounts of 9/11 based ones, I've yet to see one that gives an in detail account of how this AQ plan worked, and how the main details of the plan worked out. Paperwork will be even better than documentaries, where did Bin Laden, his family and AQ get the large amounts of money + funding from, how did they have access to such security systems? etc.

These might even exist now, I'll be happy to read any info anyone has on this.




Until I see an official working hypothesis that explains the collapse (specially of WTC7) I'm still in the middle. Not seen an official account that explains the collapse evidence yet, but neither a conspiracy theory that stands up to all scrutiny.




Don't know.




Power.



NIST report being as long as it was only covers up to pre-collapse conditions and ignores basically all post collapse modelling. The one column failure = total collapse model of WT7 seems ridiculous. And I guess the amount of money (or lack there-of) they used to fund the 9/11 report and further investigations seems insulting for such an important event are my main criticisms.
Excellent post.
Clayton Moore 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 01:23 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.