How 9/11 was done

[9/11-investigator]

There were several good posts by ellindsay, X and others concerning remote control. Thanks for their efforts. I'll probably have to update my theory on this issue, but nothing a few cans of nerve gas can not solve.

Consider this easy task for the Q's of the Mossad:

- produce cannisters with nerve gas (or another gas) with a radiographic controlled valve and a timer.
- place the canisters in the plane; either by maintenance crew, after flight clean-up crew or in passenger hand luggage. The airconditioner makes sure everything gets evenly distributed.
- the timer gets radiographicly activated on the moment the plane takes off from the runway, to avoid that the scheme blows up due to delays (flight93 had 41 minutes delay) but within range of radiographic control.
- after 30 minutes or so the gas is released, everybody paralysed, and click says the autopilot.

 

[Dr Adequate]

There were several good posts by ellindsay, X and others concerning remote control. Thanks for their efforts. I'll probably have to update my theory on this issue, but nothing a few cans of nerve gas can not solve.

Consider this easy task for the Q's of the Mossad:

- produce cannisters with nerve gas (or another gas) with a radiographic controlled valve and a timer.
- place the canisters in the plane; either by maintenance crew, after flight clean-up crew or in passenger hand luggage. The airconditioner makes sure everything gets evenly distributed.
- the timer gets radiographicly activated on the moment the plane takes off from the runway, to avoid that the scheme blows up due to delays (flight93 had 41 minutes delay) but within range of radiographic control.
- after 30 minutes or so the gas is released, everybody paralysed,

Do you have a shred of evidence that any of this actually happened? Only we have evidence for what the real hijackers actually did, which makes our theory better.

... and click says the autopilot.

And now you've gone from the unproven to the impossible. You can't set an autopilot by remote control.

Also, perhaps someone with more technical knowledge could confirm this, but surely an autopilot can't be set to perform the manoeuvres seen on 9/11? It performs only the simplest of tasks.

Whereas the actual hijackers had a trained pilot on each team.

See how our theory is better?

 

[funk de fino]

There were several good posts by ellindsay, X and others concerning remote control. Thanks for their efforts. I'll probably have to update my theory on this issue, but nothing a few cans of nerve gas can not solve.

Consider this easy task for the Q's of the Mossad:

- produce cannisters with nerve gas (or another gas) with a radiographic controlled valve and a timer.
- place the canisters in the plane; either by maintenance crew, after flight clean-up crew or in passenger hand luggage. The airconditioner makes sure everything gets evenly distributed.
- the timer gets radiographicly activated on the moment the plane takes off from the runway, to avoid that the scheme blows up due to delays (flight93 had 41 minutes delay) but within range of radiographic control.
- after 30 minutes or so the gas is released, everybody paralysed, and click says the autopilot.

So now the airlines maintenance crew are in on the plan? And the cleaners? Or a passenger who knows they are going to die due to the gas?

Also, the pesky CVR data, FDR data, ATC tapes and inflight phonecalls all disprove your joke theory.

Nerve gas does not paralyze, it causes a very nasty death. The autopilot has to be switched on or off by flight crew. It cannot do what you think it can.

I did not think there was anyone more stupid and dishonest that Bollyn. I now begin to wonder.

 

[twinstead]

There were several good posts by ellindsay, X and others concerning remote control. Thanks for their efforts. I'll probably have to update my theory on this issue, but nothing a few cans of nerve gas can not solve.

Consider this easy task for the Q's of the Mossad:

- produce cannisters with nerve gas (or another gas) with a radiographic controlled valve and a timer.
- place the canisters in the plane; either by maintenance crew, after flight clean-up crew or in passenger hand luggage. The airconditioner makes sure everything gets evenly distributed.
- the timer gets radiographicly activated on the moment the plane takes off from the runway, to avoid that the scheme blows up due to delays (flight93 had 41 minutes delay) but within range of radiographic control.
- after 30 minutes or so the gas is released, everybody paralysed, and click says the autopilot.

Great. You're just making this up as you go along. What kind of investigator are you, anyway? Do you have ANY actual evidence of this at all? This isn't some video game, kid. You are accusing people of mass murder.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

Yes, you're right, it's very easy to debunk. Let's separate the actual quote from the editorial spin that a pro-conspiratorialist anti-Semitic website has added, something a serious investigator should be doing without prompting. The actual primary source isn't even quoted, but if we take the paraphrasing as accurate - itself something of a stretch, as it relies on the honesty of the secondary source - then here's what we know:

"Maria" saw the men shortly after her neighbour phoned her to tell her about the first strike. There is no information here as to how long after the strike this phone call took place; her neighbour might have only heard about or seen the results of the first strike some time after it took place. We therefore only know that the time of her observation was after the first strike. Nor do we know whether "Maria" saw the group of men through her binoculars or directly, or where they were; however, the inference to be drawn is that they were nearby in New Jersey, not at the scene of the attack.

Now let's look at the spin. The article claims that "they were there within 15 minutes of the first tower being hit, if not before". This is not supported by the paraphrased testimony, so appears to be an invention of the person reporting the events. In particular, the comment, "if not before", is utterly unfounded and unsubstantiated. It also says, "they were celebrating before anyone know whether it was an accident or not"; again, this is not supported by the paraphrased testimony. Nowhere in "Maria"s account is it substantiated that any of these events took place before the second tower was hit, and at that moment it was obvious to any intelligent observer that an attack was taking place.

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.

I'll advise you in return that your "smoking gun" consists of the editorial spin placed by a biased and openly racist website on a single witness account which it chooses to paraphrase rather than quote. Any belief that this single, highly dubious piece of editorialisation discredits anything is clear demonstration of confirmation bias.

Dave

 

[GStan]

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.

You should read this:

http://www.911myths.com/html/dancing_israelis.html

The FBI and CIA investigated and couldn't find any evidence that they were Mossad or that they had any foreknowledge of the attacks.

Of course, this information is coming from an NWO-subsidized government shill website, but you should read it anyway.

 

[GStan]

There were several good posts by ellindsay, X and others concerning remote control. Thanks for their efforts. I'll probably have to update my theory on this issue, but nothing a few cans of nerve gas can not solve.

Consider this easy task for the Q's of the Mossad:

- produce cannisters with nerve gas (or another gas) with a radiographic controlled valve and a timer.
- place the canisters in the plane; either by maintenance crew, after flight clean-up crew or in passenger hand luggage. The airconditioner makes sure everything gets evenly distributed.
- the timer gets radiographicly activated on the moment the plane takes off from the runway, to avoid that the scheme blows up due to delays (flight93 had 41 minutes delay) but within range of radiographic control.
- after 30 minutes or so the gas is released, everybody paralysed, and click says the autopilot.

I believe you hypothesized earlier in this thread that the entire operation could be accomplished with about 40 to 60 people. How many of them were required to complete these easy tasks?

 

[twinstead]

I'll advise you in return that your "smoking gun" consists of the editorial spin placed by a biased and openly racist website on a single witness account which it chooses to paraphrase rather than quote. Any belief that this single, highly dubious piece of editorialisation discredits anything is clear demonstration of confirmation bias.

I'll second that. Only a FOOL would accept that 'evidence' as a "smoking gun", and only an arrogant fool would come on an internet forum trying to shove crap like this down people's throats as the gospel.

 

[Senenmut]

You should read this:

http://www.911myths.com/html/dancing_israelis.html

The FBI and CIA investigated and couldn't find any evidence that they were Mossad or that they had any foreknowledge of the attacks.

Of course, this information is coming from an NWO-subsidized government shill website, but you should read it anyway.

heres some interesting info about thoses israelis.
historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=sivan_kurzberg

"An investigator high up in the Bergen County law enforcement hierarchy will say in 2006, “There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted…. It looked like they’re hooked in with this [referring to the 9/11 attacks]. It looked like they knew what was going to happen.…It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park.” [Bergen Record, 9/12/2001]


maybe the fbi and cia didnt have enough time with theses guys. one of these guys refused a lie detector test and when he did, he failed it. if you guys dont find that suspicious then there is something wrong with ya. it would be nice to see what questions were asked. i would also like to see the pics and the "film" they made since they were there to "document" .

about their release-
historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=sivan_kurzberg

Around this time intense political pressure is put on US officials holding five Israeli men arrested for suspicious behavior at the time of the 9/11 attacks (see 3:56 p.m. September 11, 2001). According to the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and two unidentified “prominent New York congressmen” lobby heavily for their release. According to a source at ABC News, well-known criminal lawyer Alan Dershowitz also becomes involved as a negotiator to help get the men released. (Dershowitz will later refuse to comment on the matter.) [CounterPunch, 2/7/2007] ABC News will later report that was “high-level negotiations between Israeli and US government officials” over the five men, resulting in a settlement.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Yes, you're right, it's very easy to debunk. Let's separate the actual quote from the editorial spin that a pro-conspiratorialist anti-Semitic website has added, something a serious investigator should be doing without prompting. The actual primary source isn't even quoted, but if we take the paraphrasing as accurate - itself something of a stretch, as it relies on the honesty of the secondary source - then here's what we know:

"Maria" saw the men shortly after her neighbour phoned her to tell her about the first strike. There is no information here as to how long after the strike this phone call took place; her neighbour might have only heard about or seen the results of the first strike some time after it took place. We therefore only know that the time of her observation was after the first strike. Nor do we know whether "Maria" saw the group of men through her binoculars or directly, or where they were; however, the inference to be drawn is that they were nearby in New Jersey, not at the scene of the attack.

Now let's look at the spin. The article claims that "they were there within 15 minutes of the first tower being hit, if not before". This is not supported by the paraphrased testimony, so appears to be an invention of the person reporting the events. In particular, the comment, "if not before", is utterly unfounded and unsubstantiated. It also says, "they were celebrating before anyone know whether it was an accident or not"; again, this is not supported by the paraphrased testimony. Nowhere in "Maria"s account is it substantiated that any of these events took place before the second tower was hit, and at that moment it was obvious to any intelligent observer that an attack was taking place.



I'll advise you in return that your "smoking gun" consists of the editorial spin placed by a biased and openly racist website on a single witness account which it chooses to paraphrase rather than quote. Any belief that this single, highly dubious piece of editorialisation discredits anything is clear demonstration of confirmation bias.

Dave

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091101fiveisraelis#a091101fiveisraelis

Shortly After 8:46 a.m. September 11, 2001: Neighbor Sees Suspicious Men Documenting First WTC Attack and Cheering, Calls Police

Statements like these are quite damming for this debunking operation of yours.

While the rest of world was struggling to find out what happened, these Israelis clearly had something to celebrate. Mission accomplished.

 

[TexasJack]

I see this thread has devolved into another "Jew Hating" thread from the truthers. Big surprise.

Oh well...hopefully it ends up in "Abandon All Hope" where it belongs at this point.

TAM

As soon as I saw that his theory was 90% based on the work of Chistopher Bollyn, I knew this thread would contain no redeeming value.

 

[9/11-investigator]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17260.htm

Counterpunch has this to say:

What is perhaps most damning is that the Israelis' celebration on the New Jersey waterfront occurred in the first sixteen minutes after the initial crash, when no one was aware this was a terrorist attack. In other words, from the time the first plane hit the north tower, at 8:46 a.m., to the time the second plane hit the south tower, at 9:02 a.m., the overwhelming assumption of news outlets and government officials was that the plane's impact was simply a terrible accident. It was only after the second plane hit that suspicions were aroused. Yet if the men were cheering for political reasons, as they reportedly told the FBI, they obviously believed they were witnessing a terrorist act, and not an accident.

Do you guys have another explanation for this than calling Counterpunch antisemitic?

It is smoking guns like these that normal thinking citizens start to ask questions and have to reject the official story.

And again: I do not claim to have a shred of evidence for 'my' theories. I am just reconstructing, which is a legitimate stage in a process of getting a mystery solved. Never claimed to be doing anything else than that. But the OCT storyline is full with holes, so if I am able to construct a story that is not in contradiction with known facts than I already have an advantage over you. Even if I have no proof whatsoever.

And you have a problem.

 

[GStan]

Why did you respond to what I posted without even bothering to read the link?

heres some interesting info about thoses israelis.
historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=sivan_kurzberg

"An investigator high up in the Bergen County law enforcement hierarchy will say in 2006, “There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted…. It looked like they’re hooked in with this [referring to the 9/11 attacks]. It looked like they knew what was going to happen.…It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park.” [Bergen Record, 9/12/2001]

This is a report from the day after 9/11. Do you think that possibly better information came out after 9/12/2001? Who is this quote from and what was their connection to this case to make the determination? And where does the 2006 quote come from?

BTW, Maps of the city? They work for a *** **** moving company for crying out loud. Can you think of any non-sinister reasons why they might have a *** **** map in their van?

And if you had read the link in my post, you would not have stated this:

maybe the fbi and cia didnt have enough time with theses guys.

or this,

one of these guys refused a lie detector test and when he did, he failed it.

or this,

if you guys dont find that suspicious then there is something wrong with ya. it would be nice to see what questions were asked. i would also like to see the pics and the "film" they made since they were there to "document" .

about their release-
historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=sivan_kurzberg

Around this time intense political pressure is put on US officials holding five Israeli men arrested for suspicious behavior at the time of the 9/11 attacks (see 3:56 p.m. September 11, 2001). According to the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and two unidentified “prominent New York congressmen” lobby heavily for their release. According to a source at ABC News, well-known criminal lawyer Alan Dershowitz also becomes involved as a negotiator to help get the men released. (Dershowitz will later refuse to comment on the matter.) [CounterPunch, 2/7/2007] ABC News will later report that was “high-level negotiations between Israeli and US government officials” over the five men, resulting in a settlement.

Read the link, the FBI investigated it and found NO EVIDENCE that the men had any foreknowledge of the events of 9/11.

ETA: I misstated in my earlier post that they found no connection to Mossad. Correction: they did find evidence that two of the five men may have been Mossad operatives; in the US spying on Palestinian operations in the US.

 

[1337m4n]

Yet if the men were cheering for political reasons, as they reportedly told the FBI, they obviously believed they were witnessing a terrorist act, and not an accident.

Not necessarily, mate. Have you ever heard someone say to someone else "I hope you die in a fire"?

Or perhaps you're familiar with the antics of the Westboro Baptist Church. They believe everything bad that happens to America--9/11 included--is Divine Justice for America's "tolerance" of homosexuality.

It's like that. Even if you don't know whether something was accidental or deliberate, you're still happy that it happened to your worst enemy.



Or perhaps they DID believe they were witnessing a terrorist act. But who's to say they were 100% certain? One could infer after the first plane hit that a terrorist attack was at least one possibility, since planes generally don't crash in perfectly clear weather (at least, not into buildings). So maybe they thought it WAS a terrorist attack, and simply turned out to be correct by sheer coincidence.



And as yet another possibility, perhaps they were cheering about something completely unrelated to the WTC.

 

[Dave Rogers]

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091101fiveisraelis#a091101fiveisraelis

Shortly After 8:46 a.m. September 11, 2001: Neighbor Sees Suspicious Men Documenting First WTC Attack and Cheering, Calls Police

Statements like these are quite damming for this debunking operation of yours.

While the rest of world was struggling to find out what happened, these Israelis clearly had something to celebrate. Mission accomplished.

How many times are you planning to proclaim your confirmation bias to the rest of the world? Again, the key phrase here is "shortly after". How long is "shortly"? If it's more than sixteen minutes and twenty-eight seconds, then the second tower had already been hit, and anybody looking at the Twin Towers would be able to figure out that a terrorist attack was in progress. From the history of US policy in the Middle East, it wasn't difficult to figure out that the attacker was an enemy of Israel, particularly for an Israeli; and it wasn't difficult to figure out that this would not leave the US too well-disposed towards the Arab world in general.

So is it reasonable that "shortly after" was more than sixteen minutes and twenty-eight seconds? Let's go back to the original source again, the ABC News report that your first source quoted.

She grabbed her binoculars and watched the destruction unfolding in lower Manhattan. But as she watched the disaster, something else caught her eye.

Read the quote, and see what it says, not what you so desperately want it to say. And particularly, what it doesn't say. It doesn't say how long after the first impact her friend phoned her, and it doesn't say how long whe'd been watching when she noticed the men on the roof of the van. It doesn't even say she noticed the men "shortly after" the first tower was hit; that was when her friend phoned her. So your entire smoking gun rests on your unfounded assumption that "shortly" can only mean "even when you add an unspecified amount of time, it's still less than sixteen minutes and twenty-eight seconds".

Your credentials as an investigator are looking worse by the hour. You're clinging desperately to your starting hypothesis, and whenever it's shown to be unfounded you're googling so hurriedly for something to shore it up that you've given up all pretence of rational analysis of your sources. And again, you've chosen to believe a piece of biased editorialisation (the assertion in the title that "shortly after" referred to the observation and not the phone call) because it supports your predetermined agenda. Sorry, but if you post arguments that are full of holes like this, they'll be pulled apart before your eyes.

Oh, and "this debunking operation of yours"? Getting a little paranoid here, aren't you? Is it time for you to claim that the debunkers on this forum are Mossad agents too?

Dave

 

[1337m4n]

But the OCT storyline is full with holes, so if I am able to construct a story that is not in contradiction with known facts than I already have an advantage over you. Even if I have no proof whatsoever.

That's a bad way of looking at it. Quantum mechanics theory could be said to have "holes", and saying that all quantum behavior is the result of invisible magic faeries is not technically "in contradiction with known facts", but I don't think anyone's about to dismiss quantum mechanics theory in favor of quantum magic faerie theory, and the reason for that is primarily because quantum magic faerie theory has no proof whatsoever. Wheraes quantum mechanics does.

The OCT may have "holes", but then again, so does most every scientific theory. What matters is that the overwhelming majority of available evidence points directly to it.

 

[GStan]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17260.htm

Counterpunch has this to say:

What is perhaps most damning is that the Israelis' celebration on the New Jersey waterfront occurred in the first sixteen minutes after the initial crash, when no one was aware this was a terrorist attack. In other words, from the time the first plane hit the north tower, at 8:46 a.m., to the time the second plane hit the south tower, at 9:02 a.m., the overwhelming assumption of news outlets and government officials was that the plane's impact was simply a terrible accident. It was only after the second plane hit that suspicions were aroused. Yet if the men were cheering for political reasons, as they reportedly told the FBI, they obviously believed they were witnessing a terrorist act, and not an accident.

<snip>I have no proof whatsoever.

And youI have a problem.

Fixed that for you. The FBI was indeed suspicious and disturbed by the actions of these Israelis. That's probably why they investigated them and held them in custody for ten weeks, then deported them. They found NO EVIDENCE of a 9/11 connection or foreknowledge. Your use of the actions of these men to support your hypothesis is in direct contradiction to established facts and the alleged "official story." You have no advantage. Remove this claim from your theory or support your claim with evidence.

BTW, whoever wrote your stories quote-mined the witness testimony. She never said they were "cheering" or "celebrating."

 

[twinstead]

The idea that all one has to do is find one or more real or imagined holes in one theory to be able to insert whatever crazy, unsupported, idiotic theory in its place and make it default is ludicrous.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Do you guys have another explanation for this than calling Counterpunch antisemitic?

There isn't an explanation needed. The statement that the men were celebrating before the second plane hit is unsubstantiated by the source quoted for the claim. In other words, it's wrong. It's either sloppy journalism, conspiracist extrapolation presented as fact, or anti-government bias; it really doesn't matter which. If you look at the original source, it doesn't support what Counterpunch says. And you can google as many articles as you like that misrepresent the original story; the original source doesn't substantiate any of them, and that's the source they're all drawn from. Do you understand anything about investigative journalism?

And again: I do not claim to have a shred of evidence for 'my' theories. I am just reconstructing, which is a legitimate stage in a process of getting a mystery solved. Never claimed to be doing anything else than that. But the OCT storyline is full with holes, so if I am able to construct a story that is not in contradiction with known facts than I already have an advantage over you. Even if I have no proof whatsoever.

You don't have a shred of plausible evidence for what you refer to as holes in the OCT storyline, just a set of lies and misrepresentations from other conspiracists. And you can't construct a story that's physically feasible, let alone not in contradiction with the known facts. Remember that your entire poison gas / remote takeover scenario has been shown to contradict the information given out by the passengers, and even the identities of the passengers who phoned. You have nothing new to say here, just a racist way of saying a bunch of old stuff. And even that's not new.

Dave

 

[Senenmut]

Why did you respond to what I posted without even bothering to read the link?



This is a report from the day after 9/11. Do you think that possibly better information came out after 9/12/2001? Who is this quote from and what was their connection to this case to make the determination? And where does the 2006 quote come from?

BTW, Maps of the city? They work for a *** **** moving company for crying out loud. Can you think of any non-sinister reasons why they might have a *** **** map in their van?

And if you had read the link in my post, you would not have stated this:



or this,

or this,

Read the link, the FBI investigated it and found NO EVIDENCE that the men had any foreknowledge of the events of 9/11.

ETA: I misstated in my earlier post that they found no connection to Mossad. Correction: they did find evidence that two of the five men may have been Mossad operatives; in the US spying on Palestinian operations in the US.

i read your link. it didnt say anything about those heavy handed measures. kinda reminds me of that mossad in mexico ordeal where israel had to use heavy handed measures to get those guys released that had grenades and guns and explosives in the mexican congress.

you missed the point where they said places were highlighted and it looks like they were in on it.

would you like to look at those maps, pics, and video?? i know i would.