9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes they fucked up when they ran with the story which is why they withdrew it (first time ever). Fucking up, or recanting sheds no light on the truth of the story.

It certainly does, if they've identified them correctly in the first place. By "doesn't shed any light" you actually mean "doesn't support the Troofer belief", which is not the same thing.
 
It certainly does, if they've identified them correctly in the first place. By "doesn't shed any light" you actually mean "doesn't support the Troofer belief", which is not the same thing.

Thank goodness I got Jim Marrs "The Terrorist Conspiracy" back from the library once more. Here's some good exerpts:

Page 20-21:
**************************************
What about the hijackers themselves?

Lending support to the contention that al Qaeda has been overblown as a monolithic terrorist network is a lengthy series of disturbing questions concerning the 9/11 hijackers themselves, as well as the apparent obfuscation of the facts in the official government account.

The day following 9/11, FBI director Robert Mueller announced some astonishingly swift police work. "We have, in the last twenty-four hours, taken the [passenger] manifests and used them in an evidentiary manner. And have successfully, I believe, identified many of the hijackers on each of the four flights that went down", he told newsmen. Sounding like a 1940s police detective, Mueller added, "We will leave no stone unturned to find those responsible for the tragedies".
Yet, at the same time, Mueller acknowledge that the list of named hijackers might not contain their real names.
An obvious set of questions arises from this scenario: If they used aliases, how did the FBI identify them so quickly? How did the FBI learn the names of five of the hijackers and obtain their photographs the day of the attacks? And where did agents obtain the names and locations of businesses and restaurants used by the hijackers by that same afternoon?
Not one of the accused hijackers' names appeared on the passenger lists made public by American or United airlines. In fact, as many as seven of those named as the culprits in the attacks were soon found alive and well in the Middle East.
Saudi pilot Waleed al-Shehri was identified by the US Justice Department as one of the men who crashed American Flight 11 into the WTC. But a few days later, Waleed al-Shehri contacted authorities in Casablanca, Morocco, to proclaim that he was very much alive and played no part in the attacks. He said he did train as a pilot in the United States but left the country in September 200, to become a pilot with Saudi Arabian Airlines. Strangely, the 9/11 Commission Report speculates in its opening pages that al-Shehri must have been the man responsible for stabbing one of the flight attendants on Flight 11.

**************************************


Further down on page 21:
**************************************
"It was proved that five of the names included in the FBI list had nothing to do with what happened", announced Saudi Arabia's foreign minister Prince Saud al--Faisal, after meeting with President Bush on September 20, 2001.

Mueller acknowledged within days of the attacks that the identities of the hijackers were in doubt but this gained little notice in the rush to publicize the culprits. Despite initially saying that he was "fairly confiddent that the published names of the hijackers were correct, Mueller later admitted, "The identification process has been complicated by the fact that many Arab family names are similar. It is also possible that the hijackers used false identities".

Since Saudi Arabia's foreign minister claimed five of the proclaimed hijackers were not aboard the death planes and in fact are still alive, and a sixth man on that list was reported to be alive and well in Tunisia, why are these names still on the FBI list? These same names were used in the final report of the 9/11 Commission with no attempt to clarify the name confusion. In fact, its report goes into considerable detail throughout its pages about the supposed sinister activities of these men, apparently oblivious that numerous mainstream media sources such as the Associated Press and the BBC had long ago established that they were not on the flights.

**************************************
 
Thank goodness I got Jim Marrs "The Terrorist Conspiracy" back from the library once more.

Thank goodness I noticed some of the dates on your cites.

**************************************
What about the hijackers themselves?

"It was proved that five of the names included in the FBI list had nothing to do with what happened", announced Saudi Arabia's foreign minister Prince Saud al--Faisal, after meeting with President Bush on September 20, 2001.


Of course, the entire affair was completely refuted afterwards:

9/11 conspiracy theory

Steve Herrmann 27 Oct 06, 11:33 AM


A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.

The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.

We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.

In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.

We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

09/08/2003

Panoply of the Absurd

...

"This," say Bröckers and his co-author Andreas Hauß in what the blurb on the jacket calls a "meticulously" researched book, "has ... far-reaching consequences for the entire case, because it makes it entirely unclear as to who actually piloted the aircraft."

Just how shaky this line of argumentation is becomes evident in a statement just three lines farther down the page. "We," write the authors, "did not contact and personally interview them, nor have they been interviewed by anyone else recently." The authors continue to state that it is quite possible that the undead are now in fact dead. In the authors' opinions, if these men are alive, it must be perfectly understandable that someone who "is being accused of several thousand acts of murder" is likely to be in hiding "and unavailable for interviews."

Bröckers and Hauß spend fifteen pages making their version of a tale of suicide assassins seem plausible. Bülow does the same thing in five pages. However, a few telephone calls are all it takes to destroy their zombie theories. What these investigative journalists should have done was to spend a little time listening to those whom they cite as "reputable" sources for their arguments. Take the BBC, for example, which did in fact report, on September 23, 2001, that some of the alleged terrorists were alive and healthy and had protested their being named as assassins.

But there is one wrinkle. The BBC journalist responsible for the story only recalls this supposed sensation after having been told the date on which the story aired. "No, we did not have any videotape or photographs of the individuals in question at that time," he says, and tells us that the report was based on articles in Arab newspapers, such as the Arab News, an English-language Saudi newspaper.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-2,00.html

Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Wednesday, February 06, 2002

Saudis Arabia Admit Hijackers of Sept. 11 Attacks were Citizens


Saudi Arabia acknowledged for the first time on Wednesday that 15 of the 19 hijackers in the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon were Saudi citizens, according to a report by chinadaily.com.cn.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200202/06/eng20020206_90055.shtml


Whew! That could have been embarassing, eh? I'd recommend you read those newspaper sources, but, well, you know.

Best,

Geoff
 
09/08/2003

Panoply of the Absurd

...

"This," say Bröckers and his co-author Andreas Hauß in what the blurb on the jacket calls a "meticulously" researched book, "has ... far-reaching consequences for the entire case, because it makes it entirely unclear as to who actually piloted the aircraft."

Just how shaky this line of argumentation is becomes evident in a statement just three lines farther down the page. "We," write the authors, "did not contact and personally interview them, nor have they been interviewed by anyone else recently." The authors continue to state that it is quite possible that the undead are now in fact dead. In the authors' opinions, if these men are alive, it must be perfectly understandable that someone who "is being accused of several thousand acts of murder" is likely to be in hiding "and unavailable for interviews."

Bröckers and Hauß spend fifteen pages making their version of a tale of suicide assassins seem plausible. Bülow does the same thing in five pages. However, a few telephone calls are all it takes to destroy their zombie theories. What these investigative journalists should have done was to spend a little time listening to those whom they cite as "reputable" sources for their arguments. Take the BBC, for example, which did in fact report, on September 23, 2001, that some of the alleged terrorists were alive and healthy and had protested their being named as assassins.

But there is one wrinkle. The BBC journalist responsible for the story only recalls this supposed sensation after having been told the date on which the story aired. "No, we did not have any videotape or photographs of the individuals in question at that time," he says, and tells us that the report was based on articles in Arab newspapers, such as the Arab News, an English-language Saudi newspaper.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...5160-2,00.html

Ok, wait a second, are you saying that because their source of information were arab papers that their information is no longer valid? I certainly don't subscribe to that notion. As to the other points, perhaps there was confusion. As I've said before, I'm strongest on the WTC collapses; I'm just getting into the hijackers issue.
 
Last edited:
Official Mystery Concrete

Demolition charges do not shoot out tons of steel in such a manner. The 'explosive manner' came from god knows how many tons of building collapsing on itself.

Who would have thought it, the media can keep the biggest crime in the history of man kind a secret. FUCKING LOL

NORMAL demolitions don't shoot material out in that manner. WTC7 was a normal demolition.

The media and our engineering schools can't demand a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers. Can buildings that tall be constructed without figuring out such simple information before digging the holes for the foundations? How did the NIST write a 10,000 page report without even specifying the quantity of CONCRETE?

psik
 
NORMAL demolitions don't shoot material out in that manner. WTC7 was a normal demolition.

The media and our engineering schools can't demand a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers. Can buildings that tall be constructed without figuring out such simple information before digging the holes for the foundations? How did the NIST write a 10,000 page report without even specifying the quantity of CONCRETE?

psik

I don't imagine that would be very hard to estimate. You can go on various websites to see exactly how each floor was constructed.

Not sure what an idiot like yourself would use the data for.
 
Not sure what an idiot like yourself would use the data for.

How did a brilliant individual like yourself come to the conclusion that the top 16 levels of the north tower could come straight down, break the supports of th masses below in sequence and cause that mass to accelerate faster than gravity would have because a falling mass would have a velocity greater than gravity would impart immediately, without even asking the mass distribution that the top would have to move all of the way down?

It is one of those conservation of momentum things combined with the energy loss of breaking supports.

m1v1 + m2v2 = (m1 + m2)v3

v2 = 0 since each level below is stationary.

I did a computation with "magical" supports that disappeared on impact. The collapse times changed simply by altering distribution of mass.

http://letsrollforums.com/magical-collapse-calculations-t17456.html

psik
 
How did a brilliant individual like yourself come to the conclusion that the top 16 levels of the north tower could come straight down, break the supports of th masses below in sequence and cause that mass to accelerate faster than gravity would have because a falling mass would have a velocity greater than gravity would impart immediately, without even asking the mass distribution that the top would have to move all of the way down?

It is one of those conservation of momentum things combined with the energy loss of breaking supports.

m1v1 + m2v2 = (m1 + m2)v3

v2 = 0 since each level below is stationary.

I did a computation with "magical" supports that disappeared on impact. The collapse times changed simply by altering distribution of mass.

http://letsrollforums.com/magical-collapse-calculations-t17456.html

psik

I'm guessing your math scared responders away; I admit I really don't understand it, laugh :). Anyway, feel free to continue with your arguments over in my WTC Collapses thread; although you may want to go light on the math if you want us mere mortals to understand you ;-).
 
Hey...since we have all the other 9/11 thread now...anyone object to laying this one to rest?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top