How 9/11 was done

[Jonnyclueless]

Great, looks like we got another newbie truther who is launching another twoofer burrito. As he continues to read off every cliche conspiracy claim off the list of the conspiracy tabloids. And like all the lemings before him, seems to think he's the first one to bring up all these cliche arguments that have been discussed to death. Because he, like the other lemmings, can't be bothered to use the search function.

I guess the view point that the Jews and the government could pull off this huge act of impossible deception, but somehow can't get around faking a wanted poster should have been a dead give away. But the PNAC argument is the cliche of all cliches. I guess it's that time of the month already.

 

[Pi_314]

You're doing a great job there 911 Invstigator. Keep up the good work !

The fine print - We should encourage these people to continue wasting their lives. ;-) Better that than to have them in the midst of reality. I mean .... you don't want then operating heavy equipment do you?

 

[uruk]

I wonder if it is congenital that all conspiracy theorists have to believe in wildly convoluted and insanely complicated conspiracy plans?

If I was planing the events of 9/11 as a false flag this is how I would do it and it would only take two people (to be involved in the actual conspiracy) to accomplish it.

First there are many radical Islamic groups out there who would give thier left ovary to commit an attack on the US. So that part is a givin.

I would then recruit an agent, someone who would blend in and gain the trust of the terrorist group, and have him put the plan in action via the terrorist group. The cash wouldn't be a problem, especially if the agent recruited was already rich or from a rich family.

Everything would then proceed as pretty much as it happened on 9/11. And only two people would know the truth. "You", the trusted politcal figure and one "terrorist leader" for whom you would give a half-hearted, half-assed search for.

Any investigation into the attack would show exactly what was discovered inthe NIST and FBI investigations.

The arguments the conspiracy thoerists have about the building collapse and plane impacts are simply arguments from incredulity and poor, uneducated interpretations of pictures and videos.

 

[Bobert]

Well you guys are always screaming for a theory.

Get to it.

I mean that's what you're all here for no?

Let the debunking begin!

YyyyYYYyyyYYYYaaaaAAAAwwwwWWWwwwwNNNnnnnnNNNNn

 

[Stupid]

"They" could pull off 9/11, but not manage to win an election?

..."they" also failed to plant WMD evidence in Iraq....
...and failed to link a dead man -Saddam- to 911 or Al Queda...
...and the powerful and ruthless "they" cannot even silence amateur investigators from exposing "their" troof.


=S=


I forgot about the recent financial collapse....but that of course was planned, by secretly planting bad mortgages.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Ah yes, because every single passenger on these aircraft booked their flight so far in advance the ninjas could actually gather enough detailed personal information about them to fool their relatives. Do you have any idea how utterly pathetically stupid the above is?

I really want to go back to this because 9/11-investigator has totally ignored it and all the rest of Gumboot's postings.

9/11-investigator says that:

My contribution to the solution is that I found out how these agents got hold of sound samples in order to make voice morphing possible in the first place (keyword: Israeli firm Amdocs that has infiltrated US telecom networks).

I want to know how they knew to intercept and record Mark Bingham.

See here's a call that many CT's claim was faked, but how did the conspriators know to fake a call from him? Mark was never booked on Flight 93, he was supposed to take Flight 95 at 6:05am, not Flight 93 at 8:00am. How did the conspriators know that he'd miss his flight? How did they know that he would be out drinking the night before resulting in him oversleeping and missing his plane? He was then rushed to the airport by a friend and managed to catch 93 at the very last minute? Since he was never booked on the flight, and since he got onto it at the very last moment (he was the last passanger on and according to the accounts had to run to catch it) how could the conspirators possibly known he would be on the plane?

Interestingly he wasn't the only one that did last minute changes. Even the pilot wasn't supposed to be flying that day, he changed his schedule so he could have the friday off to spend with his wife, it was their wedding anniversary. How did the conspriators know that these people would change their plans and be on Flight 93?

 

[9/11-investigator]

It is simply amazing how many CTists bring up that one sentence from PNAC and completely miss the point that a "new Pearl Harbor" is the last thing they wanted.

Such reading incomprehension brings tears to the eyes of college English professors the world over.

Here is the sentence again: Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

You claim that from your understanding of English it is obvious that the last thing they wanted was a New Pearl Harbor.

Now here we have a group of plotters and schemers who plan for world domination no less and our friend Hokulele wants to turn these modern day trozkyites into a bunch of mother Theresa sissies?

Give me a break!

 

[T.A.M.]

What would you accept as evidence? I am an amateur detective, just like you, hacking away on his laptop far away in Holland. I have no forensic institute, no police department behind me. So what do you expect?

En what about your evidence for your story?

- explain WTC-7 for me
- explain the Pentagon hole

Answering a question with a question is a diversion tactic, likely because you do not have any evidence.

-------

WTC7 - Prolonged untreated fires resulted in the collapse of a critical column, which then resulted in the collapse of the penthouse, followed by a total collapse of the building. A group of engineers and Physicists came to this conclusion. I have seen no scientific paper (or even close) proving (A) that they were wrong, or (B) with a plausible alternative theory backed by science.

Pentagon Hole - The full extent of the Hole in the Pentagon was some 80-90 feet in length on the first floor, as well as a 12-16 foot wide hole on the second floor. The full extent of this hole was obscured in many photos. Investigative engineers assigned to investigate the crash have concluded this was the size of the "Hole". They have not concluded that anything but a jet airliner caused the hole. I have seen no photographic evidence, nor have I seen any eyewitness testimony to refute this claim. There were dozens of witnesses who saw an airliner strike the Pentagon to produce the hole.

These topics have been covered dozens of times.

Use the terms "JREF" and "Pentagon Hole" and/or "WTC7" and start reading what the links take you to.

as well, check out these links...

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/structure.php
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html

When you have done all that (about 2-3 months worth of reading), then please, bring back issues you have with the evidence, and people here would be happy to discuss it with you.

TAM

 

[9/11-investigator]

I really want to go back to this because 9/11-investigator has totally ignored it and all the rest of Gumboot's postings.

9/11-investigator says that:

I want to know how they knew to intercept and record Mark Bingham.

See here's a call that many CT's claim was faked, but how did the conspriators know to fake a call from him? Mark was never booked on Flight 93, he was supposed to take Flight 95 at 6:05am, not Flight 93 at 8:00am. How did the conspriators know that he'd miss his flight? How did they know that he would be out drinking the night before resulting in him oversleeping and missing his plane? He was then rushed to the airport by a friend and managed to catch 93 at the very last minute? Since he was never booked on the flight, and since he got onto it at the very last moment (he was the last passanger on and according to the accounts had to run to catch it) how could the conspirators possibly known he would be on the plane?

Interestingly he wasn't the only one that did last minute changes. Even the pilot wasn't supposed to be flying that day, he changed his schedule so he could have the friday off to spend with his wife, it was their wedding anniversary. How did the conspriators know that these people would change their plans and be on Flight 93?

Respekt! This is by far the most intelligent and to the point question I have seen up till now. This is the kind of questions why I am here in the first place. To be honest I have never heard of Mark Bingham before but I will certainly come back to it, because this seams to be a real test for the theory

 

[T.A.M.]

Now let's open the document:

REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES

A Report of
The Project for the New American Century
September 2000

Hmmm, one year before the event we are so cordially discussing in this cozy little trans-atlantic get-together.

Let's first go to page 51
blader-blader-blader... Ah, there it is:

The chapter is called: Creating Tomorrows Dominant Force.

Hmm. Sounds ambitious. Discussion about how America can expands it's global leadership.

And then the infamous phrase comes which is the key to 9/11:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

That's interesting. A New Pearl Harbor.

Now what was Pearl Harbor again? Was it not that act of war that was almost enforced by Roosevelt on the japanese to create an excuse to enter in WW2?

How many dead service men were there to deplore?

Some 3000. This number was sufficient to get a reluctant American population into enthusiastically joining the war effort.

Right.

A New Pearl Harbor.

Now how many people died at 9/11?

Some 3000.

Right.

Imagine, Neo-Con war hawks with an agenda to build america's defenses. Imagine Bush and the crowd wanting to go to war.

Still not evidence. 0 and 1 so far.

TAM

 

[Sparky]

I almost forgot.

I need Sparky an answer regarding motives.

Why Israel?

Still care for an answer Sparky? Anybody?

This is obviously the core. Very, very sensitive.

Now what is it what we have here...

A precious little document:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Let me get this straight.

The Mossad pursues what would potentially be the riskiest false-flag operation ever conceived in order to goad the U.S. into a defense buildup?

For what purpose may I ask?

And if that was the intention, I would say it backfired mightily since Obama has made it a stated goal to reduce the US military by 25% after he assumes the throne.

 

[T.A.M.]

sounds a lot like A-Train's theory, does it not?

TAM

 

[9/11-investigator]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Bingham

Wikipedia refers only to 1 airphone call by Bingham to his mother, not to a cell phone call.

 

[Dr Adequate]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Bingham

Wikipedia refers only to 1 airphone call by Bingham to his mother, not to a cell phone call.

Not only is this irrelevant to PhantomWolf's point, but also he didn't say otherwise.

The question is, how did they fake the call when they couldn't have known until the very last moment that he was on the flight? This question stands whether it was a cellphone or an airphone.

 

[9/11-investigator]

http://www.ufowijzer.nl/tekstpagina/911DRGriffin1.html

Dutch site that has an interview with David Ray Grifin:

"Maar spraken ze werkelijk met andere mensen. Als je de transcripties leest die ons zijn verschaft, dan lijkt het niet alsof ze een interactief gesprek voeren, het zijn allemaal éénrichting dingen die iedereen kan hebben gezegd, het is meer zoals: “Hallo mam, we zitten achterin het vliegtuig, we maken ons klaar om iets te gaan doen, ik moet nu ophangen, dag.” Ze hadden geen gesprekken waaruit blijkt dat ze echt met hun zoon, man of vrouw spraken. En we hebben een heel goed bewijs dat dat zeker niet het geval is met het bekende geval van Mark Bingham, die zegt: “Hallo mam, dit is Mark Bingham.” Wie heeft ooit met zijn moeder gesproken en daarbij zijn achternaam genoemd? Dat is zo absurd!"

Translation: but did they really speak with other people? If you read the transcripts that have been given to us then it seams that they are not having an interactive conversation. It is all a onewaystreet conversation of things that anybody could have said. It is like: hello Mum, we are in the back of the plane and now we prepare to do something; I have to hang up. Bye! They did not have conversations from which it becomes apparent that they are talking with a son, father or mother. And we have very good evidence that this is certainly not so in the well known case of Mark Bingham who said: "hello this is Mark Bingham". Who ever called his mother and used his lastname? That's so absurd.

Griffin suggests that this call was fake. That is, if the call was made, it was not by Bingham himself.

OK. This does not address the point that was raised about the delay. Just collecting facts.

 

[Sparky]

Until this day Washington is not ruling out the 'use of force' against countries like Iran and Syria.

Washington will do nothing to either of those countries unless there is a provocation.

Lust for conquest, just like the Attila the Hun, the Bolsheviks, Alexander, Caesar, Hitler. Why does the US need to spend more on 'defense' than the rest of the world combined? The US might be tempted to get some return on investment for all this military spending.

I'm under the impression that you believe that this war is profitable to the US. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Iraq conflict has been a tremendous money pit that we can't continue throwing money down. This "lust for conquest" is unaffordable. And I resent being tarred with the imperialist barbarian label.

Now maybe, with the economy in tatters and worse to come (Americas automobile industry is on the verge of collapse). But not in 2003. Bush could do anything back then. Even invade France ('chees-eating surrender monkeys'; Oh how right these 'monkeys' were).

There is nothing the French have that we want. You have a hyperinflated notion of Bush's image and approval ratings.

 

[9/11-investigator]

At any rate, it was indeed one of these one-way conversations with no intimate knowledge necessary of the relationship of the callers.

"'Mom, this is Mark Bingham. I just want to tell you that I love you. I am on a flight from Newark to San Francisco. There are three guys on board who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb. You believe me don't you, Mom? I'm calling you from the air phone.' And then we were disconnected," Hoaglan said, her voice breaking.

But, the mother acknowledged that it was his voice indeed.

 

[Heiwa]

You're doing a great job there 911 Invstigator. Keep up the good work !

I agree. I made a post # 24 about it that ended up at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128518 .

 

[lapman]

Here is the sentence again: Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

You claim that from your understanding of English it is obvious that the last thing they wanted was a New Pearl Harbor.

Now here we have a group of plotters and schemers who plan for world domination no less and our friend Hokulele wants to turn these modern day trozkyites into a bunch of mother Theresa sissies?

Give me a break!

Wow. A massive lack of comprehension on your part. Do you understand that the "revolutionary change" called for in the document did not happen with 9/11? Do you even have any inkling of what that means?

 

[Hokulele]

Here is the sentence again: Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

You claim that from your understanding of English it is obvious that the last thing they wanted was a New Pearl Harbor.

Right, here we go again. First, here is that sentence in context.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today – the F-22 fighter, for example – will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.

Source.

I have bolded the key phase. Clearly they were looking for a long-term strategy of gradual change (hint, over the coming decades). A transformational event, like Pearl Harbor, is a disaster in many meanings of the word.

Now here we have a group of plotters and schemers who plan for world domination no less and our friend Hokulele wants to turn these modern day trozkyites into a bunch of mother Theresa sissies?

Um, how exactly did you get that out of my posts? Odd.

Give me a break!

No. If you lie, repeat lies, and cherry-pick documents, you do not deserve any kind of a break.

I challenge you to read the entire document I just linked and demonstrate where exactly they state that a "New Pearl Harbor" is good for their plans.