oh.. i thought building 7 WASN'T a controlled demolition.

So what made the planes crash into the world trade center and the pentagon and then just fall out of she sky into a field in your opinion? Let me guess remote control? Explain your theory as to what happened please.

 

The alleged terrorist that flew the plane could barely fly a Cessna, yet he performed difficult maneuvers like a pro. Is that luck?

1. Only $3 million dollars to investigate the biggest attack/event in American history, while $50 million was allotted to investigate the Bill Clinton fiasco.

2. It took about 411 days before any serious investigation was made. Every big event in American history took about 7 days.

3. The men and women in the original commission were replaced.

4. George Bush constantly refused to testify. This is what we call a guilty demeanor.

5. Much of the steel beams were sold to countries overseas as scrap metal. It is against the law to remove evidence from a crime scene.

Everyone here agrees that 9/11 was very beneficial for our leaders and the leaders across he world. They use the 'war on terror' as a way to justify abuses in power.

What did Al Qaeda gain from this? Who has greater motive here?

All I know is that a second, independent, investigation needs to be done. 34%+ Americans believe that the government was somehow complacent in the attacks. No, these people aren't loony, but have valid questions that absolutely need to be answered. This movement isn't going to go away; it only grows larger. A truly benevolent country would offer a second investigation. If not for the country, then for the families that suffered the consequences of that day, because the majority of the victims aren't satisfied with the story. Not because they can't accept the fact that their loved ones are dead over something meaningless, but because they strongly feel that the official story simply doesn't add up.

 

Zep, your logical who has more to gain argument combined with some spooky and misleading facts seems like it could be convincing. But it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

The move by Al Queada wasn't a tactical attack. It wasn't a military strike at a valuable target, and it wasn't one motivated by a strategic gain.

It was one of inspiring awe and fear in Americans. It was one of avenging their world principles against a prophetic enemy. It was a symbol of striking down what they saw as the pinnacle of avarice in the west. And it was devastatingly effective.

For the information you posted.

1. A: A proescution motivated by political enemies is more likely to contribute to that kind of money, and B: The figure I got from a google search was 5 times the figure you posted.

2. There was an immediate intellegence investigation. It just wasn't the investigation you wanted. And apparently neither was the one that happened later, because it didn't match your conclusions.

3. No argument.

4. A guilty demeanor? That's just you implying something.

5. The port authority investigating it had already cleared the scrap metal to be moved. There investigation came to a close. So no crime was committed.

I doubt the port authroity had considered the rocket fuel bomb fantasies of Steve Jones as an alternative to the fact that planes smashed into the buildings.

 

Someone by that name is still alive.

Because you go to conspiracy websites where old lies live on forever. Also, you are gullible and you don't particularly care if you get lied to over and over again.

Because its the right picture.

This is the picture of the pilot Waleed who is still alive because he had nothing to do with 9/11.

 

Bush stonewalled the 9/11 investigation from the start. He stated outright that an investigation wasn't needed. That was a real slap in the face to the relatives of the victims. The stock excuse that his advisors told him to say was that an investigation would 'embolden the terrorists'.

The first two people appointed to head the commission in November 2002, more than a year after 9/11, were Henry Kissinger and then former Senator George Mitchell, two political has-beens. They resigned shortly after their appointment. In contrast, shortly after the Challenger accident, Reagan assembled a commission to investigate the accident. It was a blue ribbon panel comprised of people who had many years of experience relevent to the subject matter of the accident.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/kissinger.resigns/

It was fortunate that researchers from engineering groups like the ASCE volunteered during the first year to collect metal specimens of the towers. If a formal investigation had been initiated by the White House right after 9/11, there would have been funding and an organized approach for collecting samples. That would have greatly helped the investigation of how the structure failed.

.

 

This is a perfect example of how conspiracy theorists are easily manipulated, mostly because they won't do their own research.

When you say "the" alleged terrorist who flew "the" plane (when there were four planes and four pilots) suggest you vaguely remember a conspiracy website telling you something about one of the pilots who couldn't fly, but you can't remember which one and you don't care enough to look it up.

The pilot is Hani Hanjour. Far from being unable to fly, he had a private pilot license, a commercial pilots certificate, and an instrument rating.

What the conspiracy websites tell you is that he was refused when he tried to rent a Cessna. But that's because his english was terrible, he wasn't good at landing a plane, and he refused to provide an address and phone number. Yet the chief flight instructor that refused his application has said that "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it." However, conspiracy websites "accidentally" forget to mention that.

The budget was $15 million, again, please keep in mind that conspiracy websites lie constantly to promote their theories. Also, this is the budget of the commission, not the CIA, the FBI, the FAA, NIST, etc.

You are confusing the commission with the CIA, FBI, FAA, NIST etc, who of course were investigating immediately. Also, your 7 day figure for "every big event in American history" sounds completely made up.

Yes, outrage at Kissinger getting the job let to his resignation. Is this a bad thing?

This is what I call rational. Presidents don't like getting investigated, whether or not they are guilty. It doesn't make them look good. Look at Clinton - a total bullshit investigation turned into an open ended witch hunt which kept him in bad headlines for years and eventually nearly destroyed his Presidency.

You do not store an entire building for eternity because a crime was committed there. Besides, steel was kept and tested, your premise is false.

Everyone agrees? A survey of conspiracy theorists? Who?

What did Al Queda gain from this? What a naive question. What does any terrorist group gain from terrorism? Are you saying terrorism is theoretically impossible, because no terrorists could gain from it? That's absurd.

But look at the quesions you are asking - full of factual and logical errors, and answered many times long ago. Why have a new investigation for old myths?

 

I would like to see a coherent theory one our CT's on what they think happened, rather than mocking tapes, or suggesting that hijackers are still alive.

If it happened. It happened in one way. Reality is not a consensus. And your alternative theory can be tested.

So these what really happened websites, seem to suggest that all the hijackers are alive somewhere.

Now, again, I'm going to play devils advocate and argue pretending this was true.

If this is true, there are two options which you'd need to believe.

1: That these were the people who boarded the flight. That means the planes landed safely.

And that hundreds of family members were lied to be the people they loved who were secretly bought off by the government.

The obvious footage of planes crashing was made on Avid.

Now if this sounds logical to you, and you could see telling this to a husband who lost his wife on flight 93...

I'd actually like to see some of you argue specifics of what you think happened. Something like this. Because that would make it clear the loose ground your simplistic loose change understanding of events happened stands upon.

They're really alive on Gilligans Island somewhere.

I hope that's the theory. Because then it can be openly mocked instead of a sibilance of an argument, which takes time..

or

2. The hijackers weren't really the ones on the plane.

That makes slightly more sense. But we did have middle eastern people with tickets that said the names on the list, get on the planes, hijack the planes and crash them into buildings.

If some of these people were paid off by the government to do a switch... how did they convince the other people to give up their lives?

And why not just invent fake people?

 

I would also like to add that for years before the attacks, the CIA was gathering information and the FBI was investigating members of al Qaeda that were directly involved in the attacks or in connection with the members who were. It did not take long to connect the dots between Yousef and Bojinka, Jamal al-Fadl, Kenya and Tanzania, L'Houssaine Kherchtou, increasing attacks on US infrastructure and military installations, declaration of war, training camps, Brooklyn Cell (Hamburg Cell), Flight Schools, Kuala Lumpur, Khallad and Bangkok, San Diego and Mihdhar and Hazmi and Bayoumi, Binalshibh and al-Ghamdi, Moussaoui, assassination of Massoud, etc... I don't think anybody in Alec Station had a doubt after the second plane hit.

 

I realy like your statement "years before the attack"

 

What do you like about it? The lack of detail?

 

Yes, but what you forgot to add is that the ringleader of intelligence operation Bojinka, Ramzi Yousef, was being protected by the US government in 1992.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14280416/page/2/

Yousef entered the US in September of '92 with Ahmad Ajaj, whose luggage contained documents on how to make bombs and was stuffed with fake ID's and passports.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=ramzi_yousef

Ajaj was arrested, but for whatever reason, Yousef was released. Gee, I wonder why.

Of course Yousef would later become the alleged mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing, where the FBI provided the terrorist patsies with the actual explosives that were used.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/wtcbomb.html

 

are you completly GONE or just pretending?
dont you see you are a ct your self?
the whole statement, "the hijacers werern't the ones on the plane?
wtf does that mean? if there were hijackers then yes they were on the plane! the question is, is were the hijackers the pepole that we have been told they were? it seems curios to me that how every thing that was obliterated that a few peices of identification (passports} of the "hijackers" were found when most bodies of the passengers were very difficult to identify! doesnt that make you think?

 

We also know that the alleged ringleader of the 7/7 London bombings was also an MI5 double-agent, but I suppose that's just a conspiracy theory as well, even though it was revealed on live television:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Flypeg17ZsM

Just keep believing the Muslims are your enemy and the government is going to protect you.

 

i like it because its telling! get it!

 

Rat just say it, WHO DO YOU THINK CRASHED THE PLANES INTO THE WTC PENTAGON AND THE FIELD?

 

The budget was $15 million, again, please keep in mind that conspiracy websites lie constantly to promote their theories. Also, this is the budget of the commission, not the CIA, the FBI, the FAA, NIST, etc.

That's true. Bush still stonewalled the commission:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,437267,00.html


You are confusing the commission with the CIA, FBI, FAA, NIST etc, who of course were investigating immediately. Also, your 7 day figure for "every big event in American history" sounds completely made up.

The Robert Commission was started eleven days after Pearl Harbor. The Warren Commission started 17 days after the JFK assassination. Of course they were investigating immediately, collecting data and whatnot, but the commission itself didn't start until 447 days after 9/11. The Commission was to use all of the information collected to be used to make sense of what happened that day. "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks". If the commission is hindered in any way, then that can jeopardize the final report.

Yes, outrage at Kissinger getting the job let to his resignation. Is this a bad thing?

Nope.

This is what I call rational. Presidents don't like getting investigated, whether or not they are guilty. It doesn't make them look good. Look at Clinton - a total bullshit investigation turned into an open ended witch hunt which kept him in bad headlines for years and eventually nearly destroyed his Presidency.

That rationalizes how he reacted. He eventually testified, but under these conditions:

1. They would be allowed to testify jointly with Dick Cheney;

2. They would not be required to take an oath before testifying;

3. The testimony would not be recorded electronically or transcribed, and that the only record would be notes taken by one of the commission staffers;

4. These notes would not be made public.


Bill Clinton could have avoided much of his issues if he simply didn't lie under oath. Clinton had something to hide.

There is a difference between testifying for a terrorist attack and a scandal.

You do not store an entire building for eternity because a crime was committed there. Besides, steel was kept and tested, your premise is false.

I am not sure if that is true. Is this information from the commission report itself?

Everyone agrees? A survey of conspiracy theorists? Who?

ACLU for one. It seems that Lode believes 911 has been overused for political gain. There are millions of people around the world that believes this, including many Americans.


What did Al Queda gain from this? What a naive question. What does any terrorist group gain from terrorism? Are you saying terrorism is theoretically impossible, because no terrorists could gain from it? That's absurd.

They can gain from it.

But look at the quesions you are asking - full of factual and logical errors, and answered many times long ago. Why have a new investigation for old myths?

Admittedly, I am no where near as knowledgeable on this subject as the families of 9/11 victims are. There are many more questions to be answered.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d.../11+press+for+truth&ei=8aBZSLeyL4-E4gKOxpSjDw - Press for Truth, a documentary by the Jersey Girls.

The whole point is that the Commission Report is questionable, so using that as evidence wouldn't make much sense.

http://www.historycommons.org/ - The Terror Timeline highlights articles from many media outlets. It can serve to be much more useful than the report.

 

Live television! OMG!

What is this, the "Thighmaster" argument? AS SEEN ON TV!

 

Well, you're the type of person who ridicules anything that isn't reported on Sky or Fox News.

 

Since you clearly didn't read my post...

Pieces of identification for many of the people on the planes was found. Is that convenient too?