Questions for 9/11 Truthers

[ConspiRaider]

They knew that NEVER had a civilian airplane been shot down by the USAF over US territory.
Maybe they expected that after two or three attacks a shoot-down order would be given and executed. Still a "victory" for them, having forced the mighty USAF to shoot down a plane full with its own civilians (and maybe shot down over a heavily populated area). It was a Win-Win situation for the terrorists.

Yep.

And the attacks were purposely designed to happen nearly all at the same time, against 2 cities separated by a couple hundred miles. Lex Luthor Logic, demonstrated in the first Supe flick. Where he sends 2 missiles in opposite directions, knowing at least one will get through.

Flight 93 was delayed about 40 minutes, which would have further compressed the time span of the attacks had it taken off on time.

Surprise was their best weapon. And they figured on the false sense of invulnerability that we pretty much all felt pre-9/11. And the untested "protection" that could be afforded DC by relying on scrambling jets from Andrews. Which is why no anti-aircraft missile batteries at the Pentagon.

Crazy how clueless people talk about "NORAD response" as if they actually know what they are talking about...

 

[beachnut]

Hey Guys,

I mean...didn't I step up to the challenge or what? Can I at least get a little respect for answering these questions? This post deserves a nomination:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2182434#post2182434

Why? Because I did something you said no other PETist would even try to attempt.

I nominated it for the best case of no facts found on the web by any truther alive today or ever.

I think it is funny you think you actually have facts. Do you?

Your post was without facts. Factless.

So why do truthers have a problem understanding science?

 

[dubfan]

Translation of Funeral Article in Egyptian Paper:
al-Wafd, Wednesday, December 26, 2001 Vol 15 No 4633

News of Bin Laden's Death
and Funeral 10 days ago Islamabad -
A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa'da organization, stating that binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, stated to The Observer of Pakistan that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora 10 days ago. He mentioned that 30 of al-Qa'da fighters attended the burial as well as members of his family and some friends from the Taleban. In the farewell ceremony to his final rest guns were fired in the air. The official stated that it is difficult to pinpoint the burial location of bin Laden because according to the Wahhabi tradition no mark is left by the grave. He stressed that it is unlikely that the American forces would ever uncover any traces of bin Laden.

[New York Times 07/03/06]
The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday. The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.

No use hunting the dead guy?

[CNN]
[A Bush administration official] said U.S. intelligence is that bin Laden needs dialysis every three days and "it is fairly obvious that that could be an issue when you are running from place to place, and facing the idea of needing to generate electricity in a mountain hideout.

Renal dialysis -- talking about hemodialysis -- is something that really is reserved for patients in end-stage renal failure. That means their kidneys have just completely shut down. The most common cause of something like that would be something like diabetes and hypertension. Once that's happened, if you're separated from your dialysis machine -- and incidentally, dialysis machines require electricity, they're going to require clean water, they're going to require a sterile setting -- infection is a huge risk with that. If you don't have all those things and a functioning dialysis machine, it's unlikely that you'd survive beyond several days or a week at the most."

Of course, you have seen the 2004 tape and believe it's authenticy. But think about it, if he was dead, would you really expect they would leave us a body to find, and prove you 100% he is dead?

Ok. Let's say for the sake of argument Bin Laden died in December of 2001.

How does that absolve him from being guilty of organizing Al Qaeda during the 90s, and financing 9/11?

Go to rcfp moussaoui trial website to see a high resolution picture of the bandana.

Still can post no links, but there you find a good resolution picture of the bandana.

I've seen the pictures of the bandana.

There you find a good resolution picture of the evidence. We have been told by multiple sources, even the movie United 93, that the terrorists wore red head bandanas. This fits it perfectly. You are a terrorist in a cockpit. Flying 500mph straight to the ground upside down in a 45 to 90 degree angle. Cockpit is the first part of the plane to hit the ground. And this item did not bury itself deep into the ground? We would see evidence of that in the fabric.

Then You might argue, this was some passanger's bandana. Even if this was in the backseat, it had about 2 tenths of a seconds to create enough force to overcome the 500mph impact burial, the explosion and so on. Believe me, bandanas catch fire easily. You have to keep in mind, that unlike other crashes which have some quite intact surviving items, this was a head on crash upside down at full speed. Multiple times the force of a flat down belly crash for exaple.

Wow! 0.2 of a second, and multiple times the force of a flat down belly crash! Care to show us your math?

Maybe he took the bandana off? Are you telling me that you can predict whether or not and in what condition an object is going to survive a high-speed airplane crash?

I suggest you do some searches on crash investigations -- it is sometimes startling what's recovered. People's driver's licenses, shoes, etc. It does not surprise me in the least little bit that a silly-ass red bandana was recovered. BFD. Has anyone claimed that we know for sure that it even belonged to a hijacker?

Okay show me the informal then.

How about we employ a little socratic method, and answer your question with a question. Here's your first one:

In the mid 90s, following his expulsion from the Sudan, Bin Laden first sought refuge in and aid from what country?

*cue Gravy's Jeopardy music*

11 minutes to the wrong direction equals 22 minutes of extra time wasted, fuel consumpted and risk of getting caught. You have just speculated the events on board.

Yes, complete speculation. But it's not irrational speculation, which is quite a bit more than I can say for whatever theory it is that you're proposing. Sorry, I just don't think 7 or 11 minutes of travel in one direction is a big deal. Certainly nowhere approaching any reasonable standard of evidence that implicates the USG in planning and carrying out the attacks on 9/11.

 

[dubfan]

By the way ref, just to sum up. If I understand you correctly, your airtight proof of US Government complicity in the events of 9/11 consists of:

1. the fact that Bin Laden died in December of 2001;

2. the fact that an intact red bandana was recovered from the crash site of UA93; and

3. the fact that two aircraft traveled in the same direction for 7 and 11 minutes, respectively, after they were hijacked.

Am I following you?

 

[ref]

By the way ref, just to sum up. If I understand you correctly, your airtight proof of US Government complicity in the events of 9/11 consists of:

1. the fact that Bin Laden died in December of 2001;

2. the fact that an intact red bandana was recovered from the crash site of UA93; and

3. the fact that two aircraft traveled in the same direction for 7 and 11 minutes, respectively, after they were hijacked.

Am I following you?

Have I for one second claimed US gov is responsible? I wouldn't find it suprising, and I think there is false evidence. Lots of gap in many official stories etc. But don't put words in my mouth. I'm not building a conspiracy theory. I concentrate on suspicious things and their possibility of being normal events. Then everyone can make their own conclusion who they believe.

 

[ref]

15 posts, I can finally post links! Gets much easier now. Cool.

Ok. Let's say for the sake of argument Bin Laden died in December of 2001.

How does that absolve him from being guilty of organizing Al Qaeda during the 90s, and financing 9/11?

Think about it, how does that make the 2004 Bin Laden tape authentic? If that is not authentic, then is 2001 tape? If that is not authentic, what did he really do actually?

Wow! 0.2 of a second, and multiple times the force of a flat down belly crash! Care to show us your math??

Just common sense. The length and speed of the plane are known, as well as the hit angle. Which part is so hard to understand? You don't claim that there is less force do you?

Maybe he took the bandana off? Are you telling me that you can predict whether or not and in what condition an object is going to survive a high-speed airplane crash?

Told you already before in some post, makes no difference. Even if it was in the backseat.

I suggest you do some searches on crash investigations -- it is sometimes startling what's recovered. People's driver's licenses, shoes, etc. It does not surprise me in the least little bit that a silly-ass red bandana was recovered. BFD. Has anyone claimed that we know for sure that it even belonged to a hijacker?

I doesn't surprise me it was found. The condition does. Whether is was hijacker's or not makes no difference.

In the mid 90s, following his expulsion from the Sudan, Bin Laden first sought refuge in and aid from what country?

He went from Sudan to Afganistan via Pakistan. This has what to do with this?

 

[dubfan]

Think about it, how does that make the 2004 Bin Laden tape authentic? If that is not authentic, then is 2001 tape? If that is not authentic, what did he really do actually?

If pigs could fly...

Just common sense. The length and speed of the plane are known, as well as the hit angle. Which part is so hard to understand? You don't claim that there is less force do you?

Common sense, eh? Length and speed and angle of incidence were known? Ok -- can you show us the math you used to arrive at your conclusion?

Told you already before in some post, makes no difference. Even if it was in the backseat.

You seem to think that everything should've been completely obliterated in the crash. If that's the case, why do we find personal effects -- shoes, purses, driver's licenses, papers, all kinds of things -- in the wreckage of plane crashes -- even those that impact the ground at high speed (you can Google for this -- it's not limited to Flight 93. Happens all the time.) Why is it so weird to think a bandana could've survived?

I doesn't surprise me it was found. The condition does. Whether is was hijacker's or not makes no difference.

Again, it is not unusual to find apparently undamaged personal effects in plane crash wreckage. It's weird, but it happens. All the time.

He went from Sudan to Afganistan via Pakistan. This has what to do with this?

*BZZZT!!!*

Wrong!!! He attempted to seek refuge somewhere else first. Where, and why?

 

[gumboot]

And the untested "protection" that could be afforded DC by relying on scrambling jets from Andrews.

No protection from jets at Andrews. 121st FS (113th FW) only took on air scramble role after 9/11. Only air protection in North East on 9/11 was 2x F-15s at Otis and 2x F-16s at Langley.

-Gumboot

 

[ref]

Wrong!!! He attempted to seek refuge somewhere else first. Where, and why?

Show me a reliable source then.

 

[beachnut]

Glad there is some actual discussion on this. If you look at the picture of the bandana. It has remained in a folded condition. I don't know how to express this properly in english. In other words. It had not even opened up in the enormous turbulance. Not to mention the pristine condition.

About the lack of spots. if you hit the ground at 500mph head straight, it takes approximately 0,2 seconds for the entire plane to hit the ground. You have 2 options. 1) bury everything inside the plane deep into the ground. 2) have an explosion to spread a little of the remains elsewhere. Remember, since the bandana was inside the plane it was trapped to go deep, abcent some strange force that would toss it far away from an explosion within 0,1 seconds. We would see burial dirt or we would see explotional damage.

I'm not building the whole conpiracy around this. I just say that this is false planted evidence.

A folded bandana. Too bad, it happens.

I have been on the scene when a fellow pilot ejections was interrupted by ground impact and fire. There he was dead. But his parachute was neatly folded on the ground.

The cockpit was smashed into the ground just mangled metal. 150 yards away was one of the cockpit instruments, the airspeed indicator; perfect condition; but the rest mangled metal; the wings burnt blew up from fuel exploding on impact. There was the pilots scarf, in a neat folded condition, ripped from his zipper pocket on the ground next to his body.

How can this happen in an accident? Did the jackrabbits plant the airspeed indicator in perfect condition?

Who did it?

CT idiots will never try to research and find their own answers.

I have been at aircraft accident sites and you find some perfect stuff. Ask some NTSB guys; ask some Air Force, Navy, Marine, or Army guys who fly.

This is rocket science, go back to school and get some experience. Why do you have a problem with the plane hitting the ground and few things get ejected in the .2 second interval. How fast is a TNT blast moving?

TNT blast propagate at 6940 meter per second, now that may take the fold out of your bandana; But the slow 260 meter per second airplane leaves time for ejecting stuff as the plane breaks into the ground and breaks up.

By the way; the aircraft was going too fast for the low altitude it was at and overstressed (see the FDR), parts of the plane may have ripped off prior to impact; the plane was not suppose to go over 500 knots. The FDR only goes to 500 KIAS; did someone hear a loud boom, the plane may of gone supersonic just before impact.

A rip in the plane could have helped eject things and parts of the plane; the bandana is one of the more likely items to be found; what else did they find; pages of books, etc.

Looks like another CT idea; made up to mislead people.

 

[ref]

CT idiots will never try to research and find their own answers.

By the way; the aircraft was going too fast for the low altitude it was at and overstressed (see the FDR), parts of the plane may have ripped off prior to impact; the plane was not suppose to go over 500 knots. The FDR only goes to 500 KIAS; did someone hear a loud boom, the plane may of gone supersonic just before impact.

A rip in the plane could have helped eject things and parts of the plane; the bandana is one of the more likely items to be found; what else did they find; pages of books, etc.

Looks like another CT idea; made up to mislead people.

BTW namecalling is just stupid. But appreciate your view on this evidence. A first actual theory of what might have happened with the bandana. Others didn't even bother to do anything else but ridicule everything.

If questioning is misleading then be my guest. Too many of you have an attitude already made up. Anyone who asks a sincere question should be addressed properly. Not just blah blah you are an idiot type of reaction.

 

[uk_dave]

ref,

Please don't take to heart the responses you recieve on this forum.

These very well informed and intelligent people who have a serious grasp of the details of 9/11 can sometimes appear to be overly dismissive of CT claims, but I believe it tends to be a product of their having argued these points over and over again with different posters who have come here thinking that THEY have the questions (but seldom the answers) which can expose the grand conspiracy.

As for the red bandana, it may seem a little trite to respond with "well, stuff happens, you know?" but in all reality we are dealing with a situation where strange stuff does and will happen, because that is real life.

There are too many unknowns to be absolutely certain as to how and why the bandana ended up where it was and in the condition it was -

Was it being worn at he time of the crash?
Had it been removed during the struggle with the passengers?
Had the wearer just decided to pull it off his head some time during the last moments?
Was it a completely different bandana which happened to be in the luggage of a passenger?

We could go on for hours speculating and at the end of the day we shall probably never know. As such it becomes a rather inconsequential item from the events of that day.

 

[gumboot]

These very well informed and intelligent people who have a serious grasp of the details of 9/11 can sometimes appear to be overly dismissive of CT claims, but I believe it tends to be a product of their having argued these points over and over again with different posters who have come here thinking that THEY have the questions (but seldom the answers) which can expose the grand conspiracy.

I want to second what UK Dave is saying. Firstly, please don't take such comments personally. Frankly I think the folks here can be a bit hasty in dismissing newcomers, however in just about every case they turn out to be right. I think many are tired of people turning up who think they know it all, when they don't.

And adding to what uk dave said. It's more than just that people here are well versed in 9/11. A number of people here are actually experts in the particular fields being discussed. Beachnut attents air crash sites to investigate them.

It is incredibly frustrating, rude, and insulting when people turn up and start throwing around misinformed opinions on specialist subjects, and when confronted with evidence from experts in the field, these expert opinions are ignored.

People like beachnut worked exceedingly hard to earn the right to the title "expert" in their particular field. Dismissing their opinions out of hand, especially from a position of ignorance, is a great disservice to both them and yourself.

-Gumboot

ETA. Just re-read my post, and it is a bit misleading. Ref I don't mean to imply you specifically do the things above, but the vast majority of those engaged in this debate on the "conspiracy" side do. And it produces a general frustration and negative opinion towards those that share your general point of view.

 

[ref]

Appreciate your writing uk-dave and gumboot. We may not share the same views, but I for one am not here to call names or claim the impossible if I'm proved to be wrong. Just keeping things civilized. Don't know the history of these former debates with CT:s you mentioned but I understand what you are saying. I'm not hanging on a single bandana, like to go through things thoroughly though if you can say that. Lots of ththth in that sentence. Peace.

 

[beachnut]

BTW namecalling is just stupid. But appreciate your view on this evidence. A first actual theory of what might have happened with the bandana. Others didn't even bother to do anything else but ridicule everything.

If questioning is misleading then be my guest. Too many of you have an attitude already made up. Anyone who asks a sincere question should be addressed properly. Not just blah blah you are an idiot type of reaction.

I am talking about the ones who are pushing the junk, and not doing the work. They are making up the conclusions from items not supporting the conclusion.

I just know things in accidents can survive; the space shuttle falling from space; check it out.

Actually I was thinking the impact is like and explosive force in energy but not exactly in velocities and blast effects.

 

[The Almond]

You think they just gambled with the intercept, or knew beforehand there would be such a poor response?

I'd like to address this claim as it represents something that I consider to be an incredibly weak point in the LIHOP/MIHOP theory. The planes themselves were hijacked and the intentions of the terrorists was to kill every person on that plane. There was no possibility of forcing the plane down short of destroying it with missiles.

The terrorists still win if the US government is forced to shoot down their own planes. Flight 77 flew over some well populated areas, and the chance that the damaged or destroyed aircraft would have hit a school or a busy intersection is extremely high. Furthermore, if nothing else, the terrorists claim a great victory as the US government kills its own citizens. The conspiracy theorists go nuts claiming that the planes were never hijacked or that the government committed the act as part of the NWO, etc.

Osama bin Laden didn't need to know anything about the US government, the response times or the air force bases. He knew that no matter what happened, Americans were going to die and it would be a huge deal. If the US were capable of intercepting the aircraft and failed to shoot them down, it would be a huge victory for the terrorists. If the US shoots down the planes, it would be a huge victory for the terrorists. If the US is incapable of shooting down the planes, it would be a huge victory for the terrorists. All gambits in this situation resulted in a win, and Osama took absolutely no risk.

 

[dubfan]

Show me a reliable source then.

Chapter 2, 9/11 Commission Report. Read the whole thing.

 

[ref]

Chapter 2, 9/11 Commission Report. Read the whole thing.

Umm. Okay. Zelikow being one of the main architects behind the current preventive war on terror -policy. You would guess there would be this kind of stuff in the report. Right?

 

[dubfan]

Umm. Okay. Zelikow being one of the main architects behind the current preventive war on terror -policy. You would guess there would be this kind of stuff in the report. Right?

You didn't read the footnotes, did you?

 

[Kiwiwriter]

Another theory...

Strange things happen during catastrophic events like a plane crash or a building collapse.

For example, a copy of the New York Times (dated June 23, 1969) was found unscathed at GZ. Conservationists say a worker on the original building site for the World Trade Center must have left it inside the structure of the buildings. Weird, but irl weird things happen.

View attachment 4554

Source

It might also have been in the desk drawer or bookshelf of a WTC employee who was a Judy Garland fan...I noted her front-page obituary in the photograph.