Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[uk_dave]

There are some serious problems with the truth movement.

Tell me about it.

Geggy has just provided a perfect example of the stupidity of the 'truth' movement.
Apart from the veracity of his information, he would have us conclude that the multi-million dollar conspiracy (secret teams to pre-plant explosives, purchasing the passenger jets from the airlines, the sooper seekrit remote control gear, the planting of wreckage and body parts at shanksville and the pentagon, buying the silence of any member of the team who isn't idealogically committed to the cause or threatening them with others who also charge for their services) with a view to starting billion (if not trillion) dollar wars in far off places, could all be exposed because someone decided to make a paltry couple of million on insider information!

Likewise, the 'truth' movement wants us to believe that flying jets into buildings and then having those buildings collapse from the top down, something never before witnessed, could only fool ordinary people because they're sheeple, and construction professionals because they're scared, but not 'truthers' because it's obvious to them and the perps must have known it would be obvious to a load of internet 'truth' warriors but just didn't give a damn anyway.

And 'truthers' want us to believe that a crash site such as Shanksville just doesn't look like a crash site and it's all so bloody obvious you'd think the perps would've put some effort into the deception but of course it only fools those blinkered sheeple such as professional air crash investigators, not the intrepid internet 'truth' warriors and anyway the perps didn't give a damn because they knew the JREF forum would have their back.



etc etc and so forth.

 

[RedIbis]

Hi Ryan,

As you know, I am 100% woo-free. There has been one thing that has always bothered me about the Commission Report. (I would like anyones opinion on this)

Bush was asked to be interviewed alone. He insisted that Cheney be with him. When asked by a reporter why he wanted Cheney there, his response was: Because the 911 Commission wants to ask me questions and I am looking forward to answering them.

Now. personally I think Bush didn't want to f-himself into showing how inadequate of a leader he is/was. I am just curious what others think.

Bush does not get credit for how politically savvy he can be behind closed doors. As described in Shenon's book, when the Commission did show up to interview Bush and Cheney, the first thing Bush did was apologize to Jamie Gorelick for the way that John Ashcroft had been harassing her. Bush stated in seemingly sincere terms that he was very much opposed to such treatment and had told Ashcroft to back off. This set the tone for a more relaxed, less tense exchange, of which Cheney said very little. The Commissioners even said that it became hard to ask him the tough questions after that.

Score one for Bush.

 

[gumboot]

There is radar tracking data corresponding to all four aircraft. However, Flight 93 in specific did pass briefly through a radar "dead zone" (I think it's the only one, but I'd have to hunt to be sure; I haven't looked into this in depth), and theoretically it might have been possible to pull a "switch." However, the depth of coordination, planning, and dumb luck required for this to have a chance of success would be extraordinary, and I don't see how this would fit into any conspiracy's plans in the first place.

R.Mackey, I want to acknowledge what you're doing here, and also those people engaging with you as the OP requests. I have simply read this thread thus far, wanting to respect the intent of the OP, and not having any questions to pose myself at this time.

However, I hope you will not mind if I step in here as I think I can contribute to this point.

To refresh, the original question, from 1337m4n was:

Is there air traffic control confirmation of where and when the four planes crashed?

Air Traffic Control confirmation can come in three distinct ways. The first of these is radar data, which tracks aircraft. A "chain of custody" of sorts for the radar return would need to be established - from the point prior to hijacking, following the same return through the system until the moment of impact.

The second is eyewitness confirmation. Air Traffic Controllers are of course in constant radio communication with a multitude of pilots in many different aircraft. Those aircraft have windows, and those pilots have eyes. If a pilot witnesses the crash of an aircraft this can serve as evidence. Again, a sort of "chain of custody" would need to be established to demonstrate the aircraft was watched at all times.

The third is via the airlines. Each of the airlines has their own system for monitoring and tracking their fleet, and this data would provide evidence of the aircraft's flight and eventual fate. The same rules of "chain of custody" apply.

Now, the problem here is maintaining a constant chain of observation of the aircraft. Alternatively to relying on one constant observation, we can rely on multiple observations, if we can establish that these observations overlap - ensuring that there is no point at which the aircraft was not monitored in some way.

So now let's look at the flights.

Firstly, all four of the aircraft were tracked through the entire duration of their flights, from departure to crash site, via their respective airlines. Using this information, each of the airlines was able to confirm the fate of their aircraft, confirm the flight number, the location it crashed, and at what time.

In addition, partial radar tracking was maintained on all four flights.

Flight 11 and Flight 93 were maintained on radar from their departure until each flight dropped below effective radar coverage of the aircraft. Each aircraft dropped below radar coverage in the vicinity of their respective crash sites, within an acceptable time frame of the crash time.

Flight 175 was maintained on radar from departure until the moment that it impacted WTC2.

Flight 77 was maintained on radar from departure until the moment that the aircraft's transponder was deactivated. There then followed a period of nine minutes in which AA77 was not visible on radar. After this nine minute period AA77 was again tracked on radar until the moment of its impact with the Pentagon.

Visual observation was maintained on several flights for short periods of time. Additional observations may have occured which I am unaware of, however the following are established:

Flight 11:
Was observed by Flight 175 crew descending rapidly approximately 8 minutes before impacting WTC1.

Flight 175:
Was observed by Air Traffic Control Tower staff at Newark International Airport from shortly before impact until impact.

Flight 77:
Was observed by pilots of an Air National Guard C-130 transport aircraft from several minutes before impact until impact.

Please note that all of the above specifically relates to air traffic control observations of the aircraft, as per the question, and is not intended to represent an exhaustive list of all observations of the four flights, nor a complete list of all evidence linking each of the four flights to each crash site.

I believe that the above evidence establishes a solid "chain of custody" regarding the tracking of each flight by Air Traffic Control from prior to hijacking until impact.

As a final note I'd like to apologise for my use of the term "chain of custody". The phrase is not fully suited to this context, but best reflects the concept I wished to convey.

 

[RedIbis]

Regarding the amount of material recovered, 95% is pretty darn good.

I would agree if there were evidence of any such volume of material. 1/3 of a dumpster does not account for 95% of the aircraft.

The impact mass of the aircraft is probably not known to better than 2-3% accuracy to begin with. At rupture points, there will be some release of material as very small pieces, perhaps too small to be screened without an extremely careful archeological effort. There are also going to be some minor mass losses due to fire and random ricochets into the distance. In general, the NTSB only gathers pieces big enough for there to be a hope of identification.

Really? Even the large pieces they recovered are not identified by serial numbers. Where do you have NTSB policy that states such a requirement?

As a result, this is exactly the kind of impact performance and recovery we anticipate.

Who's we? You anticipated a third of a dumpster to account for 95% of the plane?

There's similarly no reason for the Moussaoui trial to include every single fragment as an exhibit. The mere catalogue of pieces of UA 93 debris probably runs hundreds of pages. Only a few are needed for the trial, as exemplars of the incident.

Yet none of these parts contain serial numbers. "Probably" is not a source.

I hope that answer helps you determine whether or not UA 93 indicates a conspiracy, although I don't imagine these questions are quite enough to settle the larger question of whether any conspiracy is real or even possible. But it's a step in the right direction.

I don't make assumptions on what the NTSB "probably" has. I'm aware of what photographic evidence has been released to the public and it doesn't account for 95% of the plane.

 

[SDC]

Bush does not get credit for how politically savvy he can be behind closed doors. As described in Shenon's book, when the Commission did show up to interview Bush and Cheney, the first thing Bush did was apologize to Jamie Gorelick for the way that John Ashcroft had been harassing her. Bush stated in seemingly sincere terms that he was very much opposed to such treatment and had told Ashcroft to back off. This set the tone for a more relaxed, less tense exchange, of which Cheney said very little. The Commissioners even said that it became hard to ask him the tough questions after that.

Score one for Bush.

Incredible. Bush has basic social skills. Call the troops in. Clearly he is evil (because he has social skills).

 

[DGM]

I would agree if there were evidence of any such volume of material. 1/3 of a dumpster does not account for 95% of the aircraft.

Really? Even the large pieces they recovered are not identified by serial numbers. Where do you have NTSB policy that states such a requirement?

Who's we? You anticipated a third of a dumpster to account for 95% of the plane?

Yet none of these parts contain serial numbers. "Probably" is not a source.

I don't make assumptions on what the NTSB "probably" has. I'm aware of what photographic evidence has been released to the public and it doesn't account for 95% of the plane.

Have you contacted UA about their plane? They were the last to have the wreckage. Maybe they could clear up your confusion.

 

[RedIbis]

Incredible. Bush has basic social skills. Call the troops in. Clearly he is evil (because he has social skills).

I said Bush is more savvy than people give him credit for. By most accounts he's quite boorish, given to profanity laced tirades and frat boy like humor.

 

[metamars]

In this thread, I invite anyone -- but principally the Truth Movement -- to post their crucial questions. By that I mean your questions that, if they were to be answered, would convince you that there is no compelling reason to believe in any conspiracy surrounding September 11th.

There are two kinds of people in this world. Those who divide everybody into two groups, and those who do not.



I see no reason why there should be only a single critical question, per truther. IIRC, the Jersey girls compiled hundreds of questions and only about 2/3 of these were even so much as superficially addressed by the 911 commission. Furthermore, a more serious investigation, involving serious cross-examination, would have generated numerous additional questions. I only watched the "investigation" on TV the last day, because the brilliant 911 commission decided to put off what to me was the most interesting aspect of the "investigation", till then. And that aspect was the lack of jet fighter response. A first cousin of mine has told me that a customer of his, an Air Force mechanic at a base in NJ, told him that while the first plane might possibly have hit the WTC towers without an intercept, there's no way that the 2nd plane could have done so.

The 911 commission asked a general (I think his name was Eberhart, but I'm not sure) words to the effect "There were exercises involving fighter aircraft on 911. Did this impair the fighter response?" His answer (again, not an exact quote) was "No, they improved the fighter response". (I think, additionally, he said that that's because fighters were already in the air.)

So, what was the brilliant followup question by the 911 commission, that was devoid of a prosecutor? Quite honestly, even at 8 years of age, I'm pretty sure that I would have at least mustered up the intelligence and curiosity to ask "How so?"

Ah, but the 911 commission couldn't be bothered. What interested me the most (at the time), seemed to interest them the least.

I don't know how many of the Jersey girls questions you would consider critical, but I do know how you could might be able to find out. You might be able to find out by asking them. If you really want a stiff challenge, IMO you will ask them for it, rather than an average truther, whose sum knowledge is likely derived from reading web sites and viewing videos. It seems to me that the Jersey girls are far more knowledgeable of the events of 9/11 than the average truther. They have reason to be - their husbands were murdered.

After you've talked to the Jersey girls (or even before), you can try and contact Max Cleland, and get him to further explain his explanation for quitting the 911 commission, which, you'll recall, is because it was a whitewash. Well, how exactly was it a whitewash? I don't know the details (I don't think he ever gave details), but if you find them out, you may be able to more objectively critique the 911 commission "investigation", and thus help yourself to discern additional questions, some of which may be "critical".

I don't see how a serious investigation, which encompasses all the questions that a meticulous group like the Jersey girls could compile, and which corrects whatever deficiencies a Max Cleland could detect, would not generate massive numbers of additional questions. If 3% of the net total unanswered questions thus generated are "critical questions", you might end up with a dozen of them.

To answer those critical question would probably take subpoenas and questioning under oath, with immunity on the one hand and threat of incarceration for prevarications on the other. Since you can't provide that, what serious hope do you have of answering all of the critical questions?

Given it's current level of corruption, IMO the odds of the US government seriously investigating itself are mighty poor. I believe that will still be the case if a President Obama takes office. Probably the best you could do is to contact the Jersey girls, get their total questions, and then answer them as best you can, critical or not. Nobody will blame you for not providing solid answers to questions for which you need tools which you do not possess - as long as you do not claim to have done so, when, in fact, you have not.

Should you do as I suggest, perhaps when you're done, you will grace this forum with your opinion as to whether or not a serious investigation is called for.

 

[TjW]

Why didn't the commission (or snopes) address this?

-Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co, which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Centre, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before September 11. This is against an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. Morgan Stanley's share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 after the attacks. Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts had been bought based on knowledge of the impending attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million.

-Merrill Lynch & Co, which also occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Centre, saw 12,215 October series $45 put option bought in the four trading days before attacks, a 1,200 per cent jump from the average trade volume of about 250 contracts a day. When trading resumed, Merrill's shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50. Assuming that 11,000 option contracts had been bought by 'insiders,' their profit would have been $5.5 million.

http://www.ict.org.il/index.php?sid=119〈=en&act=page&id=5230&str=insider+trading

Where is the follow up to this story?

Computer disk drives from WTC could yield clues
By Rick Perera IDG News Service, Berlin Bureau

(IDG) -- A new data-recovery technique could help trace suspicious financial transactions made shortly before the terrorist attacks in the U.S. on September 11.
An unexplained surge in transactions was recorded prior to the attacks, leading to speculation that someone might have profited from previous knowledge of the terrorist plot by moving sums of money. But because the facilities of many financial companies processing the transactions were housed in New York's World Trade Center, destroyed in the blasts, it has until now been impossible to verify that suspicion.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/industry/12/20/wtc.harddrives.idg/

Do you agree with this man?

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/CBCSunday_20060910.wmv

Hmmm.....?

Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry had stumbled across documents within the San Diego FBI office that showed an FBI informant in the local Muslim community had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000. When the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI at first balked, then refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location. Later, according to Bob Graham's own account in his book INTELLIGENCE MATTERS, a high-level FBI official told him these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House. While the 9/11 Commission managed to speak with the informant once, it made scant mention of him in its report.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/11/con05439.html

Are those really the questions, that, if answered without requiring a large conspiracy, would satisfy you that there was no large conspiracy?

Really?

 

[DGM]

Should you do as I suggest, perhaps when you're done, you will grace this forum with your opinion as to whether or not a serious investigation is called for.

How many investigations have been done so far and have they been completed?

 

[Major_Tom]

R Mackey notes:

I do not believe testing for chemical residue is even possible in the WTC case, for a variety of reasons:

If I was running the testing, I would test steel pieces at the initiating event, i.e. the collapse zone. We have exactly zero steel pieces from the core within a floor of the point of failure, from either structure. All of them were so heavily damaged that they could not be identified.

We agree that the steel from the initiating event is one of the most important places to look. Particularly the 38 foot core steel segments.

This would be the first place to look. This must have been clear to the investigators also.

Only 4 core members from (47x2x2=) 188 38 foot column sections were preserved for investigation.

This in itself is curious and suspicious.

Your explanation for this, that apparently 184 of 188 38 foot core column sections from the most important regions of the towers were "so heavily damaged they could not be identified" cannot possibly be true.

This justification isn't just weak. It requires a deep-seated believe akin to Fundamantalist Christianity.

We have exactly zero steel pieces from the core within a floor of the point of failure, from either structure. All of them were so heavily damaged that they could not be identified.[/

Please consider how easily, though illogically, you brush aside one of the most gaping holes in the official investigation.

184 of the most important 38 foot core members from the entire wreckage of both buildings just disappear.

As you agreed, aren't these the key elements around which you would focus an investigation?

 

[DGM]

Only 4 core members from (47x2x2=) 188 38 foot column sections were preserved for investigation.

This in itself is curious and suspicious.

Has it ever dawned on you that the investigators on site that looked at them with their own eyes saw no reason to save them? Are you actually aware that there was people on site investigating the collapses?

 

[R.Mackey]

ok when you think you can convince me with answering 1 question......

bye bye

Since I'm allowing you to come up with the question, I fail to see why you believe this is impossible.

For the others with similar doubts, think about it for a minute. If you cannot come up with such a question, it means you cannot test what you believe. If you cannot test it, then you cannot evaluate whether or not it is correct.

It's a new way of thinking for many. Give it a try.

None of your examples, except maybe for the moon landing, have to do with the experimental method. We can only know certain things through the words of others (hearsay). We can each decide whether or not to accept the validity of those sources. For example, how do we know our date of birth? We know it because other people(parents) told us our date of birth. We have no real way to verify it. Unless, of course, one were to invent a time machine. There might documents that we can check, but there is no experiment we can do to verify this. NIST is making a claim as to how the buildings collapsed. This can be tested through the experimental method. It has not been done yet. Why not?

Now just a minute, you're confusing yourself. NIST has been experimentally verified. There's not a single claim in it that hasn't been tested. We can discuss whether the verification is adequate, but that's a much more complicated discussion -- I spend roughly 50 pages on this in my whitepaper -- and outside the scope of this thread. But to claim that "it has not been done yet" is simply wrong.

What you asked for on the previous page was experimental verification in full scale. You've decided the only experiment that you, personally, will accept is recreation of the entire event in the real world. That's not likely to happen. I'm unaware of even a single scientist who feels similarly, so it stands to reason that no one will be pushing for such an experiment now or in the future. As a result, I'm afraid you're just going to have to remain unsatisfied.

I welcome you to come up with a different question that I may be able to answer, but it goes without saying that I cannot destroy a skyscraper for you.

 

[DC]

i dont really know how much i feel honored that you "allowing me to come up with the question"

never mind sir.

i retrect my question
and i have no real interest in your "new way of thinking" "experiment"

have a nice day sir.

 

[R.Mackey]

Hi Ryan,

As you know, I am 100% woo-free. There has been one thing that has always bothered me about the Commission Report. (I would like anyones opinion on this)

Bush was asked to be interviewed alone. He insisted that Cheney be with him. When asked by a reporter why he wanted Cheney there, his response was: Because the 911 Commission wants to ask me questions and I am looking forward to answering them.

Now. personally I think Bush didn't want to f-himself into showing how inadequate of a leader he is/was. I am just curious what others think.

You're asking for an opinion on what somebody else was thinking. Any answer you get is going to be speculative.

I speculate that Bush was afraid of his comments being used in a political rather than investigating fashion, and he wanted to make sure that any statement he made was consistent with policy that he'd agreed to with Cheney. Cheney is perhaps the strongest VP of all time, and Bush, being relatively weak centrally, had delegated a complicated arrangement to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc. that he felt might be unstable. Having Cheney present to "correct" him would be a way to prevent accidentally upsetting this arrangement if Bush's comments were inconsistent with these agreements and later published. This I do consider a hallmark of weak leadership.

All in my own opinion, of course. I can imagine a wide range of possibilities.

Why didn't the commission (or snopes) address this?
... Assuming that 11,000 option contracts had been bought by 'insiders,' their profit would have been $5.5 million.

Because it's not interesting. You've picked two data points out of the entire sea of information that is the stock market. You also make an enormous assumption that, somehow, a rogue trader or two knew more about the impending attacks than Scheuer and O'Neill combined. If you could prove that happened, then I might take this seriously.

I'm also not impressed with the dollar values. An "insider" like you claim could make 100 times that, risk-free, through congressional earmarks on black projects. Just to choose one example.

Where is the follow up to this story?

Computer disk drives from WTC could yield clues
By Rick Perera IDG News Service, Berlin Bureau

I would suggest you contact the author of the article. I don't know him, nor his work assignments.

Do you agree with this man?

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

Yes. I also believe Mr. Hamilton when he states that the Commission was a success, despite being hampered. Although, to spike any misinterpretation up front, I do disagree with some of his technical comments. This should be unsurprising since he is a non-expert in those fields, and these questions were not covered in the Commission.

Hmmm.....?

I can't figure out what your question is. Again, try formulating your critical question. This is not a thread to post quotes with no analysis, and I ask your help in keeping this thread clean. Thanks.

 

[DGM]

i dont really know how much i feel honored that you "allowing me to come up with the question"

never mind sir.

i retrect my question
and i have no real interest in your "new way of thinking" "experiment"

have a nice day sir.

Why? Are you afraid of testing your belief? Can't you think of one reason that you believe the way you do?

 

[R.Mackey]

However, I hope you will not mind if I step in here as I think I can contribute to this point.

[...]

Flight 77 was maintained on radar from departure until the moment that the aircraft's transponder was deactivated. There then followed a period of nine minutes in which AA77 was not visible on radar. After this nine minute period AA77 was again tracked on radar until the moment of its impact with the Pentagon.

You are welcome, of course. I haven't spent much time looking at the ATC data, or a number of other things. Some things I've studied in depth.

I had thought it was UA 93 and not AA 77 that was in a primary radar "dead zone," but it appears I was mistaken. Your other comments about ACARS providing independent verification are also important -- this is another thing that requires complicity of the airlines, or a fantastically sophisticated sabotage effort, in order to provide an alternate explanation.

I would agree if there were evidence of any such volume of material. 1/3 of a dumpster does not account for 95% of the aircraft.

Really? Even the large pieces they recovered are not identified by serial numbers. Where do you have NTSB policy that states such a requirement?

Who's we? You anticipated a third of a dumpster to account for 95% of the plane?

I'm having trouble understanding your comments, and your tone. You asked me why the aircraft broke into small pieces, and whether that was a function of the soil properties. I answered that question.

Now you're complaining that (a) there was only 1/3 of a dumpster of debris -- and that I believe this is all the debris recovered -- and (b) there were no serial numbers on the debris. These are assertions of yours that have nothing to do with what I said, and all three are wrong.

There is much more than 1/3 dumpster of aircraft remains. The dumpster you are talking about is only a small fraction of the recovery effort -- found by volunteers after the major sweep for debris, in an area outside the crater zone. It does not and is not the sum total of debris, nor did I nor the NTSB claim it was. This is pretty easy to figure out for yourself: You know that both engine cores were recovered. Where are they in that dumpster? They're not. Therefore, you know that more debris was recovered.

Regarding the lack of serial numbers, this is also false. You can find one or two pictures of debris that have serial numbers. There is no reason to think there weren't more. Besides serial numbers, there are personal effects including serialized identifications of a few passengers taken from the debris fields.

Again, please ask your critical question. And in the future, do not jump to conclusions regarding what I believe. If you wanted to discuss missing debris, you should have started with that question.

 

[R.Mackey]

I see no reason why there should be only a single critical question, per truther.

I don't, either. There should be many questions, each of them critical. But I'll settle for one. You'll note I still haven't gotten any.

I don't know how many of the Jersey girls questions you would consider critical, but I do know how you could might be able to find out. You might be able to find out by asking them. If you really want a stiff challenge, IMO you will ask them for it, rather than an average truther, whose sum knowledge is likely derived from reading web sites and viewing videos.

I've read and seen commentary from the Jersey Girls, in particular "Press for Truth." Their questions have been answered, but it seems to have had little effect.

If you wish to adopt one of their questions as your own critical question, I'll be glad to discuss it with you.

 

[R.Mackey]

Only 4 core members from (47x2x2=) 188 38 foot column sections were preserved for investigation.

This in itself is curious and suspicious.

Your explanation for this, that apparently 184 of 188 38 foot core column sections from the most important regions of the towers were "so heavily damaged they could not be identified" cannot possibly be true.

This justification isn't just weak. It requires a deep-seated believe akin to Fundamantalist Christianity.

Please explain why this "cannot possibly be true," and then present your own critical question. I couldn't find one in your post.

 

[Confuseling]

Did you spot my question on the first page? I admit it's pretty open, and I'll accept with good grace if you don't feel it worth answering because any answers would be too vague.

It's just an interesting point to me - perhaps the crux of the matter (I can actually see a potential motive here, so I don't discount LIHOP, but I just feel MIHOP would be far too risky if not logistically impossible), and I'd be curious to see a breakdown by somebody with the brains and analytic experience to attack the problem properly, even if only in broad strokes.