Stundie's "people who don't buy the official theory" thread

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It's something that should be investigated.

It can't be confirmed, but should be investigated. Gotcha.

We'll get right on that as soon as we eleiminate the loch ness monster and sasquatch as suspects. Thier existence hasn't been confirmed, but they should still be investigated, right?

Oliver, please watch the video and do some investigoogling.

You know that "investigoogle" is a punchline to a joke around here, right?

ETA: I'll scan it in 300dpi and link it.

Looking at your 300dpi scan now. Funny thing is, it also mentions nuclear weapons. That's a pretty major point in Glass's memo for him to have gotten wrong. The memo just isn't reliable even in hindsight.

 

[Oliver]

@Childlike: Maybe you want to sign in to this german
9/11 board. It would be much easier to understand your
secret articulation and behavior in german:

http://mosaik911.foren-city.de/

 

[Pardalis]

What do you think the airplanes should be used for in a context involving the WTC other then flying them in it?

From what I can read from the fax, he says the terrorists hate Americans, which was no news to anyone, that terrorists want to blow up the WTC, which was no news to anyone, and that they planned to use airplanes... for something, which was no news to anyone.

It doesn't say that the terrorist planned to highjack four planes and fly them into four buildings.

That's hindsight.

 

[LashL]

It can't be confirmed, but should be investigated. Gotcha.

...

The memo just isn't reliable even in hindsight.

Quite right. It clearly is not reliable either in content or form.

Aside from appearing to be a rank amateurish job on its face (sloppily written in longhand, absent addresses or fax numbers, no fax cover sheet, no fax confirmation report, for instance). It's hard to fathom why someone would send such an important document in such a sloppy fashion and not be able to confirm that it was actually sent. Most modern fax machines record outgoing and incoming faxes, and fax confirmation reports are routinely generated after the successful transmission of a fax message. Given the importance of the message, it strikes me as hard to believe that the sender would not take any steps to confirm that it was successfully transmitted.

Sorry, Childlike, but the alleged fax screams out "fake" at first blush. Do you have any evidence to support the allegation that it was actually sent or just a bald assertion made in the book you referred to?

If the answer is that you do not have any evidence to support the bald assertion, may I ask whether you believe the assertion, and if so, why?

 

[Pardalis]

Not to mention the orange ink.

Who writes anything in orange?

 

[Gravy]

Agreed, but even so, you admit it yourself it would have cost $600 Million.
The North Tower had asbestos up to the 64th floor, the South Tower had little or no asbestos. I agree but even so, you admit it yourself it would have cost $600 Million.

Absolutely false, as I took the trouble to explain here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2122044&postcount=60

You are wrong, it was fireproof to the 64th Floor.

False. See link above.

Did I ever say there was a requirement? I never said there was, but if the towers were to be brought down (because it was a white elephant and I'll explain that later) then the Asbestoes would have to be removed!

Idiotic. See link above.

Sorry it was millions not billions (If I said billions, then it was because I couldn't remember the exact figure at the moment of typing!)

Sure, there's hardly any difference bbetween millions and billions, and why bother to look up the amount of the lawsuit, much the actual costs incurred, which were much, much lower?

So they lost a 10 year court battle for $600 million, then end up doing it themselves. Even though you admit it was safe.

False. They had been been removing asbestos fireproofing when spaces became vacant since the 1980s. Prospective tenants were demanding that the abatement be done. See link above.

World Trade Center, New York. Built amidst controversy, including protest by the 1,600 small businesses evicted from their locations to make way for the complex, and the objections of the New York City government to the undervalued payments in lieu of taxes the state governments of New York and New Jersey were forcing it to accept from the Port Authority of New York, builder and owner of the Trade Center. By 1975 it lay half-empty in spite of the 25,000 New York State employees relocated to the complex by Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, who had championed the project all along. The buildings' fortune improved gradually throughout their lifespan, which was cut short when terrorists destroyed them on September 11, 2001. However, the complex was initially viewed as a monument to the stubbornness of Gov. Rockefeller, his brother David Rockefeller of the Chase Manhattan Bank, and Port Authority Executive Director Austin J. Tobin, for their insistence upon building it in spite of the declining value of Lower Manhattan commercial real estate at the time. This perception lent the World Trade Center's twin 110-story towers the early nickname Nelson and David.

This is your attempt to show that the WTC was a "white elephant?" How about mentioning the 98% occupancy rate and the thriving retail mall (several large retail chains had their most profitable stores there)? See link above. Remedial reading class continues.

Don't ever question my homework.

Since you repeat the same mistakes again and again, it's best that everyone question your homework. Especially you.

re: the asbestos
The asbestos had to be removed from the towers because of? Health hazards I guess.

There was no requirement to remove the asbestos, except by prospective tenants who didn't want it in their office space. See link above.

 

[Gravy]

I know that you know there were numerous warnings. Stundie collected a lot of them in this thread. Infamous Gravy asked him to name one specificly relevant and i did that. After TAM again denied the level of details some of the warnings had, i felt like throwing in the FAX. Why not?

Because it's a waste of time unless it can be verified. Because we all now have to take the time to tell you that it's a waste of time. Did you really think I was asking for "evidence" that anyone could have made up after the fact? Not even a fax confirmation printout?

According to Sander Hicks,

So, it's ironic that this same State Department denounces the 9/11 Truth Movement as "conspiracy theorists." This same State Department packed to the gills with the top criminal minds of Iran/Contra. This same State Department's Francis X. Taylor, in July 2001, told an informant from the Joint Terrorism Task Force, Randy Glass, "we know about the threat, the terrorist threat, from Al Qaeda and bin Laden flying airplanes into the World Trade Center. And Musharraf [the Pakistani President] has guaranteed us–because it's his ISI behind it–that he can stop it if we support him publicly." http://www.voxpopnet.net/hicksVSstatedept.html

Does that sound like something a State Department official would say to Glass, who became an informant in order to receive a reduced sentence for a $6 million jewelry fraud he had committed? (Glass had a long history of fraud and theft.)

Glass claims that that he has documentation that proves he relayed warnings about an attack on the WTC. Oh? Why does he not make these public, beyond an undated, handwritten "fax"? Doesn't he care that justice is done? And think of the book sales! Sorry, but I smell bull poo.

 

[Trifikas]

Be Fair, gang, as a fax it is interesting. With no specifics (who, what, where, when) they could have taken the fax seriously and still not have been able to prevent what actually happened.

But that's not the interesting part: If you want to take this fax as genuine, you have to take it all - and that means accepting that terrorists, as discussed in the message, were a real threat. It means taking the MIHOP idea off the table, Agreed?

 

[uk_dave]

Be Fair, gang, as a fax it is interesting. With no specifics (who, what, where, when) they could have taken the fax seriously and still not have been able to prevent what actually happened.

But that's not the interesting part: If you want to take this fax as genuine, you have to take it all - and that means accepting that terrorists, as discussed in the message, were a real threat. It means taking the MIHOP idea off the table, Agreed?

Not quite.

Because this can be spun as being the hijackers were being steered by the NWO and warnings were ignored because the NWO already knew the attack was going to happen and made it happen.

You can't win against these levels of paranoia.

lol

 

[Oliver]

Be Fair, gang, as a fax it is interesting. With no specifics (who, what, where, when) they could have taken the fax seriously and still not have been able to prevent what actually happened.

But that's not the interesting part: If you want to take this fax as genuine, you have to take it all - and that means accepting that terrorists, as discussed in the message, were a real threat. It means taking the MIHOP idea off the table, Agreed?

The Memo primary supports the LIHOP-Idea but
i don´t think that if MIHOP was the case, that
any author, agent or senator knew about it.

So the whole memo is nothing but useless. The
interesting part would be what the intelligence
did with this information - but this part of childlike´s
story is missing.

 

[Pardalis]

Doesn't the US intelligence receive countless memos of possible threats? How does anyone know how they treat any specific threat, how they filter the BS from the real info?

This guy's warnings were extremely vague:

"the threat of blowing up the WTC and who knows what else"

Yeah right, thanks for the info. Tell me something I don't know.

 

[Oliver]

Doesn't the US intelligence receive countless memos of possible threats? How does anyone know how they treat any specific threat, how they filter the BS from the real info?

This guy's warnings were extremely vague:

"the threat of blowing up the WTC and who knows what else"

Yeah right, thanks for the info. Tell me something I don't know.

All the forewarnings should have evoke some actions to
avoid the threads. As far i see it - nothing really happend.

Also the german cell was very well investigated from german
and international intelligence - but these known terrorists
were able to fly to the USA unnoticeably! nevertheless?

Another thing is Anthony Shaffner as part of DIA´s "Able
Danger". A general which i don´t know forbid to use the
Data they had about al qaida and all connections. Why?

 

[T.A.M.]

I agree with Gravy. A handwritten fax with no time/date verification data on it is completely useless. In particular, when the fax is coming from a dubious source such as Glass.

TAM

 

[Peephole]

My source had the letters scanned in directly from the FOIA but because peephole claims is a CTer, I'm saying that it shouldn't be dismissed.

That was alt+f4.

Peepholes was a list created in HTML with no links to the original paperwork. Just a list which I could esily create!

Not only are you a moron, you're a liar as well.
I did link to the original paperwork:

The passengers lists do contain the hijackers' names:
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_77_passengers.html
http://www.911myths.com/911_Manifests.zip

 

[Horatius]

@Horatius: Yeah, except... this FAX is a follow up as indicated by the sentence "I've told you repeatedly about my terrorist case".

What do you think the airplanes should be used for in a context involving the WTC other then flying them in it?

Yes, but as a followup, it's not very useful without the context of the earlier communications. What we do know is his terrorist case involved "nuclear components". Even if the plan was to attack the WTC, from this I'd have expected some sort of nuclear attack - either an actual nuclear explosive, or a "Dirty bomb" radiological weapon.

And as for the airpalnes, again, there's no indication at all as to how they will be "used". Saying that flying them into the building is the only possible interpretation is purely hindsight reasoning. As I said before, it's just as likely the planes wold be used to smuggle the weapons into the US, as that's probably the most dangerous part of such an operation.

So, nothing specific to 9/11, except a mention of the WTC. Several details we know were wrong or irrelevant. How should someone have separated the wheat from the chaff on this?

 

[Alt+F4]

That was alt+f4.

Yup, that was me. Stundie was trying to cover too many topics at once, thus the confusion.

 

[PerryLogan]

Way back there somewhere, Stundie wrote: "There are way too many coincidences on 9/11."

Here is where conspiracy folks think differently from other people.

As I keep tediously pointing out, lots of coincidences do NOT suggest a conspiracy, as conspiracists tend to think. On the contrary...

Any conspiracy might contain flaws or glitches. If you spotted these, you might have evidence of conspiracy.

But no one pulling off a subterfuge would fill it with astounding coinicidences, inconsistencies, miracles, and physical impossibilities--as this would tend to give the game away.

Nor would conspirators place history-shattering anomalies--such as fire bringing down steel-frame buildings falling for the first time etc.--at the very center of their project. Technical questions aside, conspiracy people have to explain how such a project could ever have gotten off the drawing board.

 

[uk_dave]

Ahhhhhh but the NWO are devious buggers and they know that you would say that.

They actually leave all these 'clues' to the conspiracy in order to flush out into the open all the deluded paranoids, the chancers and the psychotics so that the NWO can then..... then....... do absolutely nothing about them.

Sneaky, eh?

 

[Oliver]

The problem with the NWO is that the NWO doesn´t
exist. All my "Troofremove"-efforts didn´t work.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65335

 

[MikeW]

Yes, the "too many coincidences" argument is garbage, not least because you can argue just about anything is a "coincidence", if you want to see things that way.

The ISI chief being in Washington on 9/11 is one major "coincidence", for instance. But he'd been there since the 4th, so any of those preceding days would have been just as coincidental. And then Porter Goss and others had been in Pakistan towards the end of July, if I remember correctly, so an attack between then and the fourth would have been "an amazing coincidence" -- "they go to Pakistan, an attack occurs, Ahmad arrives in Washington days later -- what are the odds of that?". Etc etc.

Flight 77 and the Pentagon is another one.
The plane didn't crash into Rumsfelds office, when he was in the building -- too much of a coincidence!
But if, say, Rumsfeld was away from the Pentagon at the time we'd be told THAT was an astounding coincidence.
And if Rumsfeld was in his office, and Flight 77 hit that area of the building, and he was killed, doubtless we'd now be told this was a deliberate act because he was "about to go public on the Pentagon's missing trillions", as picking that exact point was just "too much of a coincidence" to be believed.