9/11 - Conspiracies Abound.

[finehoe]

LOL... just had to do it.  Could not help yourself...  I was waiting for it... and surprise!

Of course, always aim to please. 

One of the things we should "never forget" is how an evil and corrupt administration will think nothing of using a tragedy to further their own goals and how easily the American people will submit to limitations on their freedom in the name of security.

[Adam W]

One of the things we should "never forget" is how an evil and corrupt administration will think nothing of using a tragedy to further their own goals and how easily the American people will submit to limitations on their freedom in the name of security.

Ain't that the truth.

One thing that should be 100% beyond question is that the Bush Administration used 9/11 as pretext for an invasion of Iraq - knowing full well that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And there is no excuse for that - no one should defend that.

[acme54321]

Here's something that actually happened that day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDOrzF7B2Kg&feature=youtu.be

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

reports by telephone to Michael Woodward at the American Airlines Flight Services Office in Dallas, "Something is wrong. We are in a rapid descent... we are all over the place." A minute later, Woodward asks her to "describe what she sees out the window". She responds, "I see the water. I see the buildings. I see buildings..." After a short pause, she reports, "We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low." Seconds later she says, "Oh my God, we are way too low.” The call ends with a burst of very loud, sustained static.

C'mon man...

Bridge, I'm working through your claims one at a time.  Where did you get this little nugget above?  I'm reading it from the 9/11 Commission Report and it varies a little, but you did skip one of the first sentences that precluded the entire conversation, "About five minute after the hijacking began, Betty Ong contacted the American Airlines Southeastern Reservations Offices in Cary, North Carolina via an AT&T airphone to report an emergency aboard the flight."

Sweeny was relaying the information to Michael Woodard in Boston, not Dallas.  Check page 5 & 6 of the attached report.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

[bobsim]

Here's something that actually happened that day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDOrzF7B2Kg&feature=youtu.be

  Enjoyed that, thanks.

[BridgeTroll]

reports by telephone to Michael Woodward at the American Airlines Flight Services Office in Dallas, "Something is wrong. We are in a rapid descent... we are all over the place." A minute later, Woodward asks her to "describe what she sees out the window". She responds, "I see the water. I see the buildings. I see buildings..." After a short pause, she reports, "We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low." Seconds later she says, "Oh my God, we are way too low.” The call ends with a burst of very loud, sustained static.

C'mon man...

Bridge, I'm working through your claims one at a time.  Where did you get this little nugget above?  I'm reading it from the 9/11 Commission Report and it varies a little, but you did skip one of the first sentences that precluded the entire conversation, "About five minute after the hijacking began, Betty Ong contacted the American Airlines Southeastern Reservations Offices in Cary, North Carolina via an AT&T airphone to report an emergency aboard the flight."

Sweeny was relaying the information to Michael Woodard in Boston, not Dallas.  Check page 5 & 6 of the attached report.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

An "airphone" is different from a typical cellphone.  Those airphones were built into the seatbacks and communicated via the aircrafts avionics systems.  That said... cell phone calls at "altitude" are completely possible...

[Adam W]

So maybe Al Qaeda blew them up. Who knows? Until someone offers actual evidence to show that someone actually imploded them (as opposed to speculation), I will have no choice but to accept the simplest explanation.

RE:  Simple Explanations and Evidence

What actual evidence is there that Al Queda did it?

In addition to Bin Laden's numerous admissions, there was this video:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2006/09/07/al-qaeda-tape.html

I think it's safe to say Al Qaeda was responsible.

Anyway, Osama Bin Laden had actually admitted responsibility for the attacks -  so you'd have to accept his word, if you were willing to accept his word when he initially denied the attacks, no?

[jerry cornwell]

This thread is great. It lets me know which posters I shouldn't take seriously in other threads.

Its (very) hard to believe that 19 suicide terrorists hijacked 4 of the largest planes in the world and destroyed
2 of the largest buildings ever built by man.

But they did.

[KenFSU]

Any group larger than three cannot keep a secret especially in a high profile case.  Any conspiracy theory that requires more than three people is bunk.

The 9/11 thing has been completely beaten into the ground.

There's so much misinformation, suppressed information, and illogical conspiracy that we'll probably never know exactly what happened.

That said, I really disagree with the above reasoning.

It completely ignores the countless secrets that nobody knows about because nobody has ever talked.

Perfect example is from the news this week.

The Russian government revealed that they are sitting on a diamond mine worth approximately $1 QUADRILLION dollars. The mine contains trillions of carats of diamonds totaling over ten times the amount ever discovered in the world. Forbes noted that it could completely upend the global diamond market.

The Russian government has been successfully keeping this information secret for OVER FORTY YEARS before choosing to release the details this week. If they didn't volunteer the information, who knows how long it would have remained a thing of conspiracy.

I agree that it's a faulty leap of logic to ignore widespread eyewitness accounts (yes, I know eyewitnesses testimony isn't always accurate) and say that a missile hit the Pentagon simply because the hole doesn't seem to match an aircraft, but on the same account, it's also a faulty leap of logic to suggest that secrets -- especially with incredibly high stakes -- can never be kept.

[Tacachale]

That some other people kept some other, unrelated secret is irrelevant. It certainly doesn't undermine all the evidence and reasoned conclusions about the 9/11 attacks. Especially considering that very few people ever knew about the diamond mine until now, to the point that no one really knows how significant it really is, while 9/11 happened in broad daylight in front of thousands of people, and has been studied closely ever since.

[PeeJayEss]

Any group larger than three cannot keep a secret especially in a high profile case.  Any conspiracy theory that requires more than three people is bunk.

The 9/11 thing has been completely beaten into the ground.

There's so much misinformation, suppressed information, and illogical conspiracy that we'll probably never know exactly what happened.

That said, I really disagree with the above reasoning.

It completely ignores the countless secrets that nobody knows about because nobody has ever talked.

Perfect example is from the news this week.

The Russian government revealed that they are sitting on a diamond mine worth approximately $1 QUADRILLION dollars. The mine contains trillions of carats of diamonds totaling over ten times the amount ever discovered in the world. Forbes noted that it could completely upend the global diamond market.

The Russian government has been successfully keeping this information secret for OVER FORTY YEARS before choosing to release the details this week. If they didn't volunteer the information, who knows how long it would have remained a thing of conspiracy.

I agree that it's a faulty leap of logic to ignore widespread eyewitness accounts (yes, I know eyewitnesses testimony isn't always accurate) and say that a missile hit the Pentagon simply because the hole doesn't seem to match an aircraft, but on the same account, it's also a faulty leap of logic to suggest that secrets -- especially with incredibly high stakes -- can never be kept.

The Russian diamond mine isn't a conspiracy, and the fact that the mine held diamonds does not require the complicity of hundreds of people. A couple scientists working for the Kremlin discovered it, and the Kremlin decided to keep their findings classified. There's no complexity at all.

Top it off with fantastically bad reporting. The quadrillion dollars thing is ludicrous as is the assertion that it will upend the global diamond market. They state that the diamonds are industrial quality. We can produce these in a lab for less than it takes to mine for them, so no matter how many you find, you can't get them cheaper than you already can. What they have is value in the ground, but the cost to get those diamonds out of the ground would be larger than the value.

Anyway, doesn't help prove that anything happened on 9/11 other than what has been reported.

[KenFSU]

Nowhere did I, or am I, suggesting that 9/11 didn't take place exactly as stated.

Was just pointing out the flawed nature of the "secrets can't be kept by more than 3 people" argument, because it's an illogical argument that cannot be tested due to the very nature of secrecy itself.

I'm a sucker for the facts.

An NIST report detailing the weakening of the steel structure of the World Trade Center due to fire before ultimately buckling and collapsing is a fact. You can use that to build a logical argument.

"It's impossible for people to keep secrets" is not.

[finehoe]

Diamonds are not especially rare.  For more than a century, the powerful DeBeers Consolidated Mines, a South African corporation, has managed to organize a cartel restricting the supply of diamonds on the market and raising the price far above what would have been market levels.

It is not simply that DeBeers mines much of the world's diamonds; DeBeers has persuaded the world's diamond miners to market virtually all their diamonds through DeBeer's Central Selling Organization (CSO), which then grades, distributes, and sells all the rough diamonds to cutters and dealers further down on the road toward the consumer.

[MusicMan]

There is more than enough "evidence" disputing the 9-11 Commission findings to support a serious, independant, re-examination of what happened. The single largest piece of evidence is the demolition of building WTC 7. When
1000 demolition experts review the actual film ("real evidence") of the actual building free falling (more "real evidence")  onto the streets of New York and UNANIMOUSLY AGREE THAT THE BUILDING WAS BROUGHT DOWN BY DEMOLITION EXPERTS, YOU HAVE ALL THE REAL EVIDENCE ANY SANE RATIONAL HUMAN NEEDS.

The important question is who put the explosives in place, and why? When the owner of the building looks right into a camera and states "We've decided to "pull" the building," what the hell do you think he's talking about?

When the government is controling the investigation into what happened, you are likely to get an outcome that the government wants. Sort of like the supposed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which prompted the Invasion of Iraq. By golly we were shown hi =def pictures of the weapons on neat power point demonstrations. 
Problem is, once the troops got over there we never even found 1. 

Don't you folks remember the charter document of the 'New American Century' neo-con crack pots, in which they hope for a new "Pearl Harbor " type event that will allow them to reshape American  Foreign Policy? Isn't that real evidence? And then, two short years later, it actually happens?

Finally, don't you remember, W and Dick Cheney would only testify before the 9-11 commission if the did not have to take an oath, and only if they appered together. Can someone please explain to me why those two did that?

[KenFSU]

When the government is controling the investigation into what happened, you are likely to get an outcome that the government wants. Sort of like the supposed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which prompted the Invasion of Iraq. By golly we were shown hi =def pictures of the weapons on neat power point demonstrations. 
Problem is, once the troops got over there we never even found 1. 

Don't you folks remember the charter document of the 'New American Century' neo-con crack pots, in which they hope for a new "Pearl Harbor " type event that will allow them to reshape American  Foreign Policy? Isn't that real evidence? And then, two short years later, it actually happens?

Finally, don't you remember, W and Dick Cheney would only testify before the 9-11 commission if the did not have to take an oath, and only if they appered together. Can someone please explain to me why those two did that?

Was the 9/11 Commission Investigation thorough and effective? Absolutely not. The Commission Chair and Vice-Chair said as much in their book, basically admitting that they were stonewalled by the Bush Administration and the Pentagon every step of the way and apologizing to the American public for their failure with the investigation. Then again, you can't really expect much of an investigation when you're given $1 million to work with, less than a year to complete the most important investigation in modern US history, and denied access to much of the information you need to accurately do your job with the investigation.

Did the Bush Administration act, from day one, like they had something to hide? Sure. Even if they were being completely honest about everything, who can blame anyone for doubting them or thinking they were acting suspicious, especially after the WMD fiasco. They blocked the investigation for over a year. Cheney personally called members of Congress supporting an investigation, threatened them, and labeled them unpatriotic. Bush used his first words in front of the United Nations to say "let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories about the attacks." Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath, or seperately.

Did the attacks provide Bush and his political/military/intelligence cronies a convenient green light to push forward with military plans that dated back to his father's time in office, possibly back to Iran-Contra? Of course they did.

To me, if I was suspicous of the official story, the much more logical conspiracy theory would then point toward the administration having foreknowledge that the attacks were coming (which they did), and intentionally turning a blind eye. There is some pretty intriguing evidence that the FBI was called off from its pursuit of Mohammed Atta, and that the training exercises taking place the morning of 9/11 that confused air traffic controllers and made it difficult for military fighter jets to respond in time to the hijackings were ordered from high within the Bush admin. Secrety of Transportation Norman Minetta had some interesting testimony as well that Cheney knew that a plane was headed for the Pentagon and ordered a stand down.

This could explain their unwillingness to cooperate with an investigation, but then again, so could the fact that they wanted to cover up their gross imcompetence.

It's just so hard to make heads or tails of anything with so much conflicting information out there.

What I don't understand though, is this. If we all know that there was ample warning from both our own domestic intelligence, and foreign intelligence as well, that an attack was imminent, which conspiracy theory would make more sense for people to jump on? A conscious stand down executed by 5-10 people, or a massive conspiracy involving missiles, shot down airplanes, controlled demolitions, remote controlled planes, fake cell phone calls, phony engineering reports, etc orchestrated by thousands of people?