How 9/11 was done

[Thunder]

parky- he has got it referenced if you take a look.

guess what? the reference #16 is no longer in existance. that was the one with the quote about the anthrax, bomb making material, fertilizer, caps, wires, etc etc..

how very conventient.

oh, and btw, is says "several weehawken neighboring residents". we all know how reliable neighbors are when it comes to FBI investigations into Israelis.

 

[Senenmut]

guess what? the reference #16 is no longer in existance. that was the one with the quote about the anthrax, bomb making material, fertilizer, caps, wires, etc etc..

how very conventient.

oh, and btw, is says "several weehawken neighboring residents". we all know how reliable neighbors are when it comes to FBI investigations into Israelis.

do you think wolf blitzer would persue that story??

 

[dtugg]

I haven't really read this thread.

But it turns out that it was the Jews, right? And we know this because some Holocaust denier said so, right?

 

[Thunder]

do you think wolf blitzer would persue that story??

dude, the reference is inactive. even if it was active, the eyewitness "reports" of neighbors is useless. only the FBI or other law enforcemant can report on what the FBI found.

but thank you for providing this. it shows how very unreliable the reports into Urban Moving Systems actually are.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The cockpit door is not wide enough to let 2 hijackers in at once. If the first pilot has his throat slit then the second pilot should have enough to a split second to mobilize himself with stretched arms to avoid throat cutting.

And if they got into the cockpit by saying: "Do as we say right now or we cut the throat of this stewardess"?

They don't have to use violence to take over the cockpit, the crew were under instructions to cooperate with hijackers.

BTW, nothing but really nothing in the life's of these shy soft spoken devout muslims give's hints that they were capable to such a sudden burst of barbaric violence.

We admit that none of them had any previous record of committing suicide attacks.

There's a reason for this.

You're making it up just not to contradict OCT.

There were in fact a number of things in their lives that gave "hints" of their capacity for violence, such as the way they hung around with terrorists like Al Qaeda. What do you think they were doing on those occasions, discussing flower arranging?

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Hints? They hung out with terrorists, they made "martyrdom tapes", they acquired the skills and weapons necessary to do the job ... these are more than "hints".

 

[Doctor Evil]

We admit that none of them had any previous record of committing suicide attacks.

Shocking, isn't it?

Anyway, I laughed.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Good evening, greetings from Amsterdam/Holland.

Sorry for the interruption but I have here a little theory about how 9/11 was done. Maybe you would care to look at it and give some comments. Thanks in advance.

Nobody ever claimed that 9/11 was carried out by the Japanese, the Russians, the Dutch or the Hutu's.

There are only 2 possibilities:

1) Arabs (Arab Conspiracy Theory - ACT)
2) Some kind of inside job (CIA, Mossad)

Your assigning "Arabs" as a distinguisher in item 1 is only partially correct. It should more rightly be "religious extremists."

As for "some kind of inside job," insofar as it relates to the events of 9/11, it is not a "possibility" in any way, shape or form. Couldn't happen. Didn't happen.

 

[gumboot]

No it is not. Saddam was asked to do the impossible, namely proving that he had no WMD's.

Wrong. Please go read up on the UNSC resolutions against Iraq. In 1991 both the UN and Iraq agreed that Iraq had illegal weapons (chemical, biological, and various long range firing platforms) and illegal weapons programs (chemical, biological and nuclear).

Iraq was directed to dismantle all weapons programs, destroy all weapons and provide evidence of this destruction to the UN.

Iraq failed to provide evidence of the dismantling of their illegal weapons and research programs, and continually and consistently failed to cooperate with the UN and behaved in a threatening and aggressive manner towards coalition forces in the Gulf and neighbouring states. (Look up Operation Vigilant Warrior, Operation Vigilant Warrior II, Operation Desert Strike, Operation Desert Thunder and Operation Desert Fox). This led to the obvious conclusion that the weapons still existed.

Now, you can argue that the US were too eager to interpret intelligence in favour of evidence of continued weapons programs and lacked skepticism, but what remains undeniable is Iraq failed to comply with the UN requirements, and had they met those requirements there would not have been an Iraq War.

 

[Thunder]

Shocking, isn't it?

Anyway, I laughed.

This is indeed a fact. It CANNOT be debunked. None of the 19 hijackers had any previous experience with suicide attacks.

Boy..they really got us there.

By the way, on 9-11, I was in Hong Kong about to fly to Japan. On the tv, they showed a message that a little known Japanese extremist group had taken credit for the attacks inorder to get revenge for the civilian deaths at Nagasaki.

 

[gumboot]

I'll look into that. A strong indication is that none of the 4 airplanes send a 'I have been hijacked' signal. This indicates that the loss of control was immediate.

This is nonsense. Aircraft do not send "I have been hijacked" signals. The pilot has to manually change the transponder code. This did not happen on any of the flights on account of the pilots being distracted by the knives rammed in their throats.

However the pilot on UA93 did manage to get out several "Mayday" calls, which refutes you "immediate loss of control" argument.

1) reading a signal from the transponder and program the new course (what normally the pilot would do manually if he wants to use his autopilot)

I don't think you understand what transponders are.

2) total disabling of all controlls

This would not be possible, and would be the crux of your problem. Worst case scenario, the pilots could simply pull the breakers and fly the aircraft without power.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes 9/11 investigator like the other lemmings fails to understand that it was not a traditional hijacking where the pilots are still used to fly the plane and can then switch the transponder to hijack.

And yet he thinks that the planes were taken over by remote control and that the pilots just sat there and shrugged, not bothering to switch the transponder to hijack or to radio to ground control.

 

[gumboot]

Bollyn is vague about the technical specifications of the software that had been manipulated. He mentions indeed PTech as the key player. He says that NORAD software has been manipulated, what is possible since nobody denies that PTech had NORAD as a client. What I do not understand is how the 'home run' system got activated. There were suggestions 'via the transponder'. That would be via NORAD would it not? Now is there a way to circumvent NORAD and send a signal 'from the field' so to speak? Or must we assume that somebody send the signal from within NORAD?

Any ideas?

Ptech's software is a virtual organisation software. You punch in the various departments and components of an organisation with their various interactions and features, and it allows you to assess the impact of changing something. For example, what happens if we merge our Personnel and Recruitment teams and combine their budgets?

Ptech software is not operational software, it is not run on operational computer systems, and it certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with air traffic control or air monitoring. Ptech were investigated after 9/11 and it was found their software was harmless.

For what it's worth Ptech does not help the Mossad/CIA theory because Ptech is a Muslim organisation with strong links to Islamic Terrorists. If anyone was utilising Ptech it was Al Qaeda, not Mossad.

As for your transponder fantasy, it shows a gross lack of understanding of both the air traffic control system and NORAD.

Transponders are certified devices which respond specifically to the interrogation signal from an FAA interrogator beacon. They send back a specific recognisable response. That is the end of the interaction.

NORAD has absolutely no direct contact with an aircraft transponder, and has no way of sending a direct signal to an aircraft transponder even if it wished to.

Transponders do not communicate with the flight computer. Your theory would involve installing some sort of device in the aircraft which linked into the flight computer, and received communications from a ground-based transmitter of unknown origin. In other words you would need to install an entirely new and discreet remote control system. Nothing in the existing transponder/beacon ATC circuit could be utilised for this purpose. You could not modify or replace these components either because then the system would not function as it was supposed to and the pilots and ATC staff would detect something was wrong.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Hey 9-11 Investigator...you'd better hope for your sake that there is no international Zionist conspiracy behind 9-11. From every thing you've described their resources and technical aptitude are nearly limitless, they are able to insert operatives into any country in the world to operate with absolute impunity, and they don't even blink at massacring 3000 non-combatants in an allied country.

I put it to you - Why are you still alive and posting on this forum? Wouldn't an organization with the resources and capability of the Mossad in your theory be actively monitoring sites such as this one to ensure nobody got too close to the truth - and "disappearing" the ones that did?

I now present to you a one act play. The characters are two Mossad agents actively monitoring the JREF website.

A1 : Oy Gevalt, Moesha! This Belgian meshugganah's getting too close to the matzo balls.

A2 : You remember the woman in Hoorn, Manachem?

A1 : Mazeltov! I'm thinking 10kgs of C4 right under his mattress.

A2 : Agreed. Bagels first, though, right?

A1 : Oy, What a mensch!

***both cackle maniacally as scene fades to black***

 

[Dave Rogers]

According to this scenario...

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenario404.html

... here is een narrative that states: The deployment of the explosive charges in the three World Trade Center skyscrapers is performed by a team of just three technicians working over a period of about four weeks.

That's 60 man-days. Or a crew of 30 in my weekend-scenario.

I'm a little behind the action here, but taking numbers from Scenario 404 shows your gullibility more than anything else. Why would you assume that these figures are justified simply because they're on a truther website?

Let's do some maths, and check Scenario 404's figures.
The scenario assumes that WTC1, 2 and 7 were destroyed by demolition charges, and states that “The number of explosive charges used in the Twin Towers is far less than would be employed in conventional demolitions of such large buildings, but their aggregate explosive energy is much greater. Each charge is contained in a capsule weighing about 40 pounds and encased in an impact- and fire-resistant casing similar to the casings that shield aircraft black boxes.” We see at http://www.911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html (the same website as this scenario, therefore I will assume that the scenario is intended to be consistent with it) an estimate of the amount of explosive used. It is calculated that the energy yield of the explosive is of order ten times the potential energy of the towers, which equates to approximately 5000 tons of high explosive. Let us assume that, of the total weight of this 40lb capsule, 30lb is high explosive, the remainder being taken up by detonators, radio equipment and impact- and fire-resistant casing. For this amount of high explosive, 400,000 of these capsules are required throughout WTC1 and WTC2.
Based on the calculation of 400,000 charges required to be placed, this requires that the three technicians, even working twelve-hour days, seven days a week for four weeks, have been placing one charge every ten seconds. This includes time to unload the charges from the fleet of trucks bringing them to the WTC (assuming that the truck drivers were not part of the conspiracy, and have since failed to realize the significance of the large numbers of light fittings they transported into the towers in August), bring them up to the required sky lobby, change to the appropriate local elevator, place the charges and then ride the elevators back down to the parking garage. Even supposing the technicians are able to carry more than their own weight in explosives on each trip, we still have a total time of less than two minutes to carry out all these actions.
This is not complicated mathematics, it's simple arithmetic, and it shows simply and clearly that your source is giving absurd numbers. The question I'd like to ask is, if you're a serious investigator, why don't you scrutinise truther sources with the same skepticism you display towards non-truther sources? Your credibility is at stake when you blindly pull numbers out of rubbish like Scenario 404.

P.S. the same link has a paragraph "The Destruction in Manhattan". It states that placing of radiographic explosives in the elevator shaft is sufficient to bring the building down. This makes the discussion about power-down in the weekend superfluous. Essential is the availability of one elevator shaft closed for the public.

Again, your gullibility is showing, as is the slipshod nature of your "research". It says thermobaric, not radiographic, explosives. Thermobarics are low-velocity, high-yield explosives, excellent for killing large numbers of people, good for demolishing high surface area structures such as brick or concrete buildings, but utterly useless, due to the lack of a concentrated shock wave, for severing steel structural members. Thermobarics also put out very large and obvious flames, which would be obvious in any video of the collapses - they would look a lot like the fuel deflagrations when the airliners hit. They simply aren't there.

Again: If you're a serious investigator, why are you so uncritical of sources that match your predetermined conclusion?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Can somebody explain why all four aircraft did not send a 'I am hijacked' signal?

I advanced a hypothesis in post #284, but I'm happy to repeat it. The script goes something like this:

Hijacker grabs young, attractive woman (y.a.w.), ideally a member of the cabin crew, and holds a very sharp knife to her jugular. He then instructs another member of the flight crew to unlock the cockpit door (if it's even locked; regs said lock it, but real people often ignore regs). Entering the cockpit with y.a.w. in front of him, he tells the pilots not to touch any controls, then says that if they don't get up from their seats immediately he'll kill the y.a.w. and then his associates will start killing the passengers. Pilots comply immediately to avoid bloodshed, because they expect this will be a standard hijack ending in a hostage situation, and there's a chance they'll all get out of this alive.

Simple, brutal, low-tech and effective. Which part of that seems implausible?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Ah that changes everything. Not documenting but recording. Brilliant answer, really. But tell me parky: how did they know the event was coming in the first place?

[T]hey were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage.


So they were there early, while the towers still stood. Probably even before they got hit. In other words they knew it was coming.

Now there's a classic piece of truther dishonesty. Let's take it apart and look at it.

Your quote says that they were seen photographing the ruins and the wreckage. That places them at the scene after the towers fell. You've then taken it to mean, with no justification, that they were there before the towers fell. Claiming that as fact, you then go on to speculate that this implies they were there before the towers were hit. So your evidence of foreknowledge here is your own speculative extrapolation from a deliberate misinterpretation of your own source.

Honestly, this is a poor performance. You're actually admitting that you're making your evidence up as you go along.

Dave

 

[MikeW]

Hijacker grabs young, attractive woman (y.a.w.), ideally a member of the cabin crew, and holds a very sharp knife to her jugular. He then instructs another member of the flight crew to unlock the cockpit door...

From memory there were two attendants stabbed on flight 11, and they were the two who had keys to the cockpit. If this wasn't a coincidence then it might be something they learned while taking flights and observing what's going on. And that certainly makes sense: if you wanted to break into the cockpit, and there were people outside who had a key, then you'd want to see if you could identify them, then attack them first.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Now there's a classic piece of truther dishonesty. Let's take it apart and look at it.

Your quote says that they were seen photographing the ruins and the wreckage. That places them at the scene after the towers fell. You've then taken it to mean, with no justification, that they were there before the towers fell. Claiming that as fact, you then go on to speculate that this implies they were there before the towers were hit. So your evidence of foreknowledge here is your own speculative extrapolation from a deliberate misinterpretation of your own source.

Honestly, this is a poor performance. You're actually admitting that you're making your evidence up as you go along.

Dave

This is very easy to debunk:

http://incogman.wordpress.com/2007/11/04/911-inside-job-file-the-dancing-israelis/

On the morning of 9/11, a little old lady who wishes to be known only as Maria, was called by a neighbor to tell her about the first strike on the North Tower. Grabbing a pair of binoculars, she went to the window overlooking NY. This New Jersey woman then noticed a group of men standing on a white van, photographing and filming the event and acting joyful and happy. They were high-fiving each other and supposedly, holding up lighters like at a rock concert. This shocked her and she copied the license plate numbers and called the law.

They were there within 15 minutes of the first tower being hit, if not before. Plus, they were celebrating when no one else knew if it was an accident or not! Think about that one. This case shows blatant foreknowledge –if nothing else

I'll advise the debunkers to pay carefull attention to this issue since this is one of the largest smoking guns and a ticking timebomb under the already discredited OCT and reason why my ICT has much more credebility.

 

[chillzero]

I don't see this as relevant to the setting up of the events of 911, as laid out in your OP.

 

[funk de fino]

This is very easy to debunk:

http://incogman.wordpress.com/2007/11/04/911-inside-job-file-the-dancing-israelis/

On the morning of 9/11, a little old lady who wishes to be known only as Maria, was called by a neighbor to tell her about the first strike on the North Tower. Grabbing a pair of binoculars, she went to the window overlooking NY. This New Jersey woman then noticed a group of men standing on a white van, photographing and filming the event and acting joyful and happy. They were high-fiving each other and supposedly, holding up lighters like at a rock concert. This shocked her and she copied the license plate numbers and called the law.

They were there within 15 minutes of the first tower being hit, if not before. Plus, they were celebrating when no one else knew if it was an accident or not! Think about that one. This case shows blatant foreknowledge –if nothing else

I'll advise the debunkers to pay carefull attention to this issue since this is one of the largest smoking guns and a ticking timebomb under the already discredited OCT and reason why my ICT has much more credebility.

hearsay.com again

utter lies