Questions for 9/11 Truthers

[volatile]

Just a quickie - but it's one that shows your reading skills are a little lacking:

Anyway, it is you who is inflating my argument. Remember, I started by laying out the evidence that there were guns in possession of the hijackers. I noted the call from Tom Burnett, and the FAA report filed as a result of Betty Ong's call. Someone else on this board then claimed the guns couldn't have been on board because if they were, a passenger would have heard them and reported it on a phone call. I replied that the gun could have been equipped with a silencer, greatly muffling the sound.​

That sure looks like its you doing the inflation, AT...

Your reasoning is something along the lines of that used by Creationists - in order to refute a problem in your argument, you need to make it more complicated. Rather than accepting that the fact no-one heard gunfire shows that no guns were fired, you need to inflate the theory with a "could have" which adds another layer of complexity to your 'theory'.

Ever heard of Occam's Razor?


​

 

[DontAskMe]

The conspirators made the decision to crash the plane into the ground long before any passenger revolt. .

boy, if you are wrong, and I am still open to almost any possibility considering who the players are in this whole 911 debacle; but if you are wrong I sure hope you personally apologize to each and every single family member of each and every person that are alleged to have stormed that cabin...

 

[twinstead]

Oh come on A-Train. Any moron can see what you are doing. At least admit that you are trying to force feed us pure conjecture and make us think it is filet Mignon.

You are using conjecture to prove conjecture. Your logic is so circular I feel like a forced ride on the Magic Teacups at Disneyland.

With each response to very rational objections to your theory, your theory becomes more and more complex and untenable (as if it could become any more untenable than it was from the git go).

I realize you and those who think like you will never be convinced you are wrong, and will go to your graves thinking you have 'figured it all out', and we are just brainwashed fools no matter what rational arguments contrary to you theories are presented, but this really isn't about you. There are dozens of people who lurk these threads without ever posting. They are your audience. I wonder what they would think after reading your posts?

You are anathema to real professional investigators.

 

[Arus808]

Just a quickie - but it's one that shows your reading skills are a little lacking:

That sure looks like its you doing the inflation, AT...

Your reasoning is something along the lines of that used by Creationists - in order to refute a problem in your argument, you need to make it more complicated. Rather than accepting that the fact no-one heard gunfire shows that no guns were fired, you need to inflate the theory with a "could have" which adds another layer of complexity to your 'theory'.

Ever heard of Occam's Razor?


​

It also shows that he has no understand of how guns work and how a silencer work; hand has never handled or fired a gun with a silencer attached.

Its hardly "silent".

 

[Firestone]

I put the blame squarely on those who had the means, motive and a past precedent of similar attacks.

OK, your whole construction has been trashed by others, no need for me to repeat it in bad English.

But you know how we are, curious and the like ...

So can you tell me what previous hijacking were executed by "those you blame"? Can you tell me when "those you blame" have committed suicide attacks in the past?

And, sorry for being curious and the like, but why do you single out one company that handled the security for one of the four planes, and forget about the two others that handled the security for the three other planes? (See here for example.)
It's just the fifth time I ask, it's a minor point, but just the same, why can't you satisfy my natural curiosity on this?

 

[Kiwiwriter]

Nominations and rubbish

I nominated R. Mackey's brilliant post.

As for the idea that "rogue officers" in NORAD "in the pay of a foreign nation" would arrange the stand-down on 9/11, such behavior backs up R. Mackey's theory...the expansion of this conspiracy. Now we have a group of NORAD officers involved with this, in cahoots with the big plot, in the pay of the Jooooooooooos (of course), all with their careers neatly linked to prepare this plot (which would require at least a decade of preparation) and everyone of these officers in position and authority to prevent NORAD from doing its job in an hour of supreme national crisis, and then getting away with their conspiracy at the time and for years after.

Sorry, that conjecture doesn't pass my laugh test. You obviously have no knowledge of the US military.

And on USS Liberty, as we have discussed here repeatedly, the case was investigated, the Israeli government admitted their act, apologized, and paid reparations. Not much left to "cover up," and the only relevance of this incident to 9/11 is that it provides a penknife for anti-Semites to grind on any occasion. Whenever anti-Semites want to beat up on the US-Israeli relationship and somehow "prove" that Israel's real plan is to control the United States. If so, they're doing a lousy job of it.

Anyway, I'm more interested in your ideas about Joooooooos. I posted some questions on this subject earlier, and you didn't answer. So I'm calling you out again. What do you think about Jews?

 

[tsig]

Hearsay.

Y'know, I have a cannon in my front yard. It's true.

What, don't you believe me?

I have two cannons in my front yard.

I just redefined cannon to mean a 55 gallon drum cut in half. It's so easy when you can make it up on the fly.

 

[Horatius]

Now we have a group of NORAD officers involved with this, in cahoots with the big plot, in the pay of the Jooooooooooos (of course), all with their careers neatly linked to prepare this plot (which would require at least a decade of preparation) and everyone of these officers in position and authority to prevent NORAD from doing its job in an hour of supreme national crisis, and then getting away with their conspiracy at the time and for years after.

He's also said the "higher ups" in NORAD weren't in on it. So now we have this little cabal of mid-level officers triping up the NORAD response, and yet, none of the senior officers who are ultimately responsible for the response bothered to ask, "Hey, guys, what happened to all those alert fighters we had? They've been sitting there for years, and all of a sudden, they just weren't available? WTF?"

If I was the general in charge, and somebody dropped the ball that badly, I'd be kicking ass all up and down the chain of command, until I found out exactly what happnened.

 

[A-Train]

And on USS Liberty, as we have discussed here repeatedly, the case was investigated, the Israeli government admitted their act, apologized, and paid reparations. Not much left to "cover up," and the only relevance of this incident to 9/11 is that it provides a penknife for anti-Semites to grind on any occasion.

They never "admitted their act." They lied about it and said it was an accident. A sustained 75 minute attack against a defenseless ship from the sea and the air, napalm dropped on the deck, sailors machine gunned from the air as they scrambled aboard life boats. Thirty-four American boys murdered in cold blood.

But don't take my word for it. Go to this web site and read all about it.

http://www.ussliberty.com/

Go there and tell James Ennes and the rest of the survivors that they are wrong, that the attack was an accident just like the Israelis say. Tell them that they are liars. Tell them they are "anti-semites."

You believe the word of Israel, and contend our men are liars? Is this the prevailing attitude of JREFers?

 

[beachnut]

Back in the day everyone knew Israel attacked our spy ship.

So why do people make up CT out of any current event? Why do people invent stuff about events?

to sell books to dumb guys in white power groups? (or just dumb guys like me?)

I did not buy any Liberty books, it is like buying a book on the Titantic, I know the ending. (some new facts would be neat instead of CT lies)

 

[A-Train]

And, sorry for being curious and the like, but why do you single out one company that handled the security for one of the four planes, and forget about the two others that handled the security for the three other planes? (See here for example.)
It's just the fifth time I ask, it's a minor point, but just the same, why can't you satisfy my natural curiosity on this?

You're hammering away at me on this one detail. The information I had was that Huntleigh (owned by ICTS) handled security at BOS, and provided security services to the other two airports as well. My sources for that are probably not accepted as valid on this site: Bollyn, whatreallyhappened, and a book titled Galilee Flowers by the Israeli writer Isreal Shamir. I don't have time to research this in detail right now. If you can show ICTS was not involved in security at EWR and IAD, let me know and I will stand corrected.

But don't miss the forest for the trees. My basic argument is that guns on board is one of the pieces of evidence pointing to a more sophisticated conspiracy than al-qaeda was capable of, and indicated connections at the airports. I still stand by that.

 

[beachnut]

Why do truther stand by lies and false statements?

Why are they short on facts to support the dumb ideas they come up with like guns on board? Guns on board would have made the takeover of flight 93 a non-event. Why are truthers so dumb?

That is a question for a truther.

 

[Firestone]

You're hammering away at me on this one detail. The information I had was that Huntleigh (owned by ICTS) handled security at BOS, and provided security services to the other two airports as well. My sources for that are probably not accepted as valid on this site: Bollyn, whatreallyhappened, and a book titled Galilee Flowers by the Israeli writer Isreal Shamir. I don't have time to research this in detail right now. If you can show ICTS was not involved in security at EWR and IAD, let me know and I will stand corrected.

I'm hammering because ICTS's role is one of only two "links" you have provided between the attacks and Israel (the other being that one of the victims on flight 11 was an Israeli).

The 9/11 Commission report very clearly states who handled the security for each of the four flights, and Huntleigh handled only one.

So yes, it is bizarre that you neglect the two other companies.

You are right that for me, Bollyn and whatreallyhappened are not reliable sources. Moreover, I am not aware that the two other companies denied that they handled the security for three of the flights, as stated by the 9/11 Commission report

So, I think I actually proved my point, and you have not (yet) provided reliable evidence for yours.

But don't miss the forest for the trees. My basic argument is that guns on board is one of the pieces of evidence pointing to a more sophisticated conspiracy than al-qaeda was capable of, and indicated connections at the airports. I still stand by that.

As most people on the forum, I don't see why Al-Qaeda would no be able to smuggle a gun on an airplane (if there were guns on the planes).

And (you may call this hammering), the overwhelming evidence you claimed to have about Israeli involvement so far has proven very underwhelming.

 

[volatile]

My basic argument is that guns on board is one of the pieces of evidence pointing to a more sophisticated conspiracy than al-qaeda was capable of, and indicated connections at the airports. I still stand by that.

I'll repeat what I posted elsewhere: Guns were able to be brought onto planes before 911 and afterwards through the incompetence of the security screeners.

I don't get it. They might have had a gun. So what? People have smuggled all kinds of things - bombs, knives, guns - onto planes, before 911 and since: From 2000 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,400231,00.html "In October security at Stanstead airport in Essex was criticised when it emerged that government inspectors smuggled a gun and a fake bomb past security checks." See also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/954183.stm From 2005 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4146985.stm "An Israeli man forgot he was carrying a loaded pistol in his hand luggage when he flew into Britain for a holiday, a court has heard. Benjamin Lehman, 48, from the West Bank, managed to pass security checks at Tel Aviv and Heathrow without the weapon being discovered." There's no need for a huge conspiracy even if guns were on board. Security screeners make mistakes sometimes.

 

[A-Train]

(the other being that one of the victims on flight 11 was an Israeli).

That "victim" was named by Betty Ong as being one of the hijackers. That is an indisputable fact. And he was no ordinary Israeli. He was an elite commando trained in aircraft takeover techniques.

Besides, it is not my goal here to link 9/11 to Israel. I am trying to show that there is no proof that the hijackers were the Arabs of the official story. I am trying to show that they may have been agents of a foreign government, disguised as Arabs, for the purpose of framing Arabs.

 

[Firestone]

That "victim" was named by Betty Ong as being one of the hijackers. That is an indisputable fact. And he was no ordinary Israeli. He was an elite commando trained in aircraft takeover techniques.

Betty Ong named him???

And where did you get the info that he was trained in aircraft takeover techniques?
(To be perfectly clear, this is a question.)

How do you explain that there was only one Israeli on the four flights, if according to you, the hijackers were Israeli's?
And if you will now claim that they had forged passports with Arab names, why did Daniel Lewin travel under his real name?
Once more, you will have to add new assumptions to maintain your baseless hypothesis.

Besides, it is not my goal here to link 9/11 to Israel. I am trying to show that there is no proof that the hijackers were the Arabs of the official story. I am trying to show that they may have been agents of a foreign government, disguised as Arabs, for the purpose of framing Arabs.

Bin Laden disagrees.

 

[Arus808]

That "victim" was named by Betty Ong as being one of the hijackers. That is an indisputable fact. And he was no ordinary Israeli. He was an elite commando trained in aircraft takeover techniques.

citation.. evidence? proof?

Besides, it is not my goal here to link 9/11 to Israel.

In your oh so many posts, you have done that.

I am trying to show that there is no proof that the hijackers were the Arabs of the official story.

despite the video tapes that show that they were?

I am trying to show that they may have been agents of a foreign government, disguised as Arabs, for the purpose of framing Arabs.

despite evidence that extremist Arabs have been known to and of course act on and have conducted many hijackings in the past? why do they need to be framed? They gladly celebrated when the towers collapsed and they gladly took responsibility of the act.

no framing needed.

 

[Horatius]

Betty Ong called from AAL11 and reported one of the hijackers came from seat 9B, and an injured passenger in seat 10B. Based on that phone call, the FAA filed a report on the day of 9/11 stating that one of the hijackers (Suqami) sitting in seat 10B had shot passenger Daniel Lewin in seat 9B. (I can't post the link but it is on worldnetdaily website.) How they came to that conclusion is a mystery since the evidence clearly indicates the opposite happened-- but we'll discuss that another day. The report was filed on the day of the event, but was withdrawn later under suspicious circumstances. The story was changed to that Lewin was stabbed. Obviously the FAA learned what the official story was supposed to be, so they changed their original report that reflected Ong's report of guns.

That "victim" was named by Betty Ong as being one of the hijackers. That is an indisputable fact. And he was no ordinary Israeli. He was an elite commando trained in aircraft takeover techniques.

I'd be interested in know how this fact is "indisputable". I can find no transcript of her call where she names the particular seats you mention. Where did you find this? You've got enough posts now you can post links, so why don't you show us?

Until we see something more, your "indisputable fact" is anything but.

And I'd love to see what evidence youhave for Daniel Lewin being an "elite commando trained in aircraft takeover techniques". And a definition of what "aircraft takeover techniques" means. Do we train commandos to hijack planes now?

 

[A-Train]

citation.. evidence? proof?


In your oh so many posts, you have done that.



despite the video tapes that show that they were?



despite evidence that extremist Arabs have been known to and of course act on and have conducted many hijackings in the past? why do they need to be framed? They gladly celebrated when the towers collapsed and they gladly took responsibility of the act.

no framing needed.

First of all, you're right. She didn't name him. She said one of the hijackers came from seat 9B, and there was an injured passenger in seat 10B. Lewin was assigned seat 9B and Satam Suqami had seat 10B.

http://www.centerforcoopertiveresearch.org/

(Between 8:27-8:30)

The rest of your post is filled with garbage showing you haven't been paying attention. There are no videotapes showing the hijackers were Arabs. All the surveillance video that should have been taken at the boarding gates-- that would show us the true hijackers-- has mysteriously disappeared or was never made. That ought to really bother people on your side of the argument. You may be thinking of the video of Atta at the Portland ME airport. You may be thinking of some video released by a law firm taken at Dulles which has proven to be bogus.

They gladly celebrated? Are you referring to the "Arabs" in New York City who turned out to be Israeli soldiers posing as Arabs? Or are you referring to the footage showed over and over on CNN and FOX on 9/11 showing Palestinians laughing and celebrating. Look at that footage again. It's on the internet. There is no indication the people are referring to the events in New York. It turns out they were offered candy and sweets to act happy while the cameras rolled. Talk about an insidious frame-up job.

 

[Anti-sophist]

Life must be so easy to understand when everything bad that happens is the Jews fault.