How 9/11 was done

[stateofgrace]

Investiagtor you said

KSM withdrew his 'confession'

Please could you offer a link to this ?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Excuse me?

Last I checked, KSM had as recently as a week ago said he would plead guilty to planning the 9/11 attacks during his trial. How is that retracting his confession, pray tell?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/12/09/guantanamo.defendants/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

The White House has consistently denied that the United States practices torture, but CIA officials have admitted to using at least one technique -- "waterboarding" -- that has been considered a war crime in the past.

 

[stateofgrace]

I'm sorry, but KSM withdrew his 'confession'. Probably not water boarded long enough. I advise kicking in the testicles; that worked rather well in 1945.
?

Link, please, third time of asking.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Since I am the guy who is making up all the stories while you serious people have all the evidence (that's what you claim) please explain to me the case of Barbara Olson.

On September the 12th Ted Olson runs to the media to tell his story, that he received a call from Barbara about the the hijackers, the box cutters and so on.

The FBI has said that no such call has been taken place.

How do my opponents explain this?

Here is some supporting material just in case you have forgotten what again the evidence was.

http://911review.org/Wiki/CellPhoneCallsFlight77.shtml

Success.

False. Fail, no success. There were 4 calls made, two of those attributed to Barbara Olson. Read http://www.911myths.com/index.php/American_Airlines_Flight_77_Calls

57. The records available for the phone calls from American 77 do not allow for a determination of which of four “connected calls to unknown numbers” represent the two between Barbara and Ted Olson, although the FBI and DOJ believe that all four represent communications between Barbara Olson and her husband’s office (all family members of the Flight 77 passengers and crew were canvassed to see if they had received any phone calls from the hijacked flight, and only Renee May’s parents and Ted Olson indicated that they had received such calls). The four calls were at 9:15:34 for 1 minute, 42 seconds; 9:20:15 for 4 minutes, 34 seconds; 9:25:48 for 2 minutes, 34 seconds; and 9:30:56 for 4 minutes, 20 seconds. FBI report,“American Airlines Airphone Usage,” Sept. 20, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Theodore Olson, Sept. 11, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Helen Voss, Sept. 14, 2001;AAL response to the Commission’s supplemental document request, Jan. 20, 2004.
Footnote 57 to Chapter 1, 9/11 Commission Report

Again, you give credence to DRG without validating his information. Griffin has been proven to rely on distortion and misrepresentation to make his case. You need to study something other than conspiracy peddling sites. Your information is inaccurate, and by the way was discussed back in February in this forum.

 

[dtugg]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/12/09/guantanamo.defendants/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

The White House has consistently denied that the United States practices torture, but CIA officials have admitted to using at least one technique -- "waterboarding" -- that has been considered a war crime in the past.

So how exactly does that mean he retracted his confession? And even if you throw out everything he has said since he has been in custody, he still bragged about doing it even before he was even captured, this has been explained to you. Did you forget? I guess so because it is mighty inconvenient to your totally unfounded, libelous joooooo job fantasy.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

They needed a way to fool the world into this Arabs-did-it story. The phone calls were the way to do it. It was not enough to post a few picture from Arabs captured by security camera's. The calls were essential to promote the story. And to a limited altitude phone calls are possible. But it had never been tested until what altitude it would work.

The beauty of this plot was that all kinds of emerging technologies were used: voice morphing, cell phones, thermite, aircraft remote control. That made it so difficult for the public to grasp what had happened.

Fail. The voice morphing technology only works with prerecorded samples of people's voices, and fails on that point alone. You really think the government was able to get prerecorded samples of all the calling passengers voices, including the ones who were added to the flights at the last moment?

Furthermore, the inventor of the technology is on record as saying that the notion of faking calls using this technology is not possible.

Thermite has been debunked. None of the evidence provided by the conspiracy movement has risen to the level of indicating it was present, and no one's been able to explain why the overt signs of its use, including the presence of hardened pools of formerly molten metal and indications of melting on recovered steel segments, were missing.

Others have explained how supposed remote control technologies fail.

There is simply nothing in your argument that has been proven. You've yet to acknowledge that cell calls were indeed possible, and in fact have had cases of such calls being made prior to 9/11. You also fail to acknowledge that many of the calls were made via seatback airphone, and not by cell, thus making irrelevant the argument that Dewdney's experiment falsifies all the calls. You also fail to acknowledge that, for family members who recevied calls, they have validated the identity of the callers.

There is no substance to your allegations. You merely parrot David Ray Griffin without critical analysis of his claims. That is the furthest thing from logical, disciplined thinking. For the umpteenth time, I suggest that you compare your claims against information other critical thinkers have assembled. Each and every one of your claims have been answered in the past already, and as I have pointed out, it's not taking much effort to find the information rebutting you. It's almost as if you've generated your claims against our preassembled information already, so as to make the task of responding to your claims easy. Please, consider checking your info against the sources I've already linked. It's nearly to the point that a programmer can write a script to respond to you.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I too would like a link to KSM taking back his confession. It would be the only thing that could kep this thread from continuing in a discussion that has already been discussed in 1000 other threads on this forum. If Mr investigator wanted the answers to his question, he would have tried searching the forum to see its been addressed many times over. Or does he really think this is the first time the Olsen calls came up?

I would also like to point out that his statement about the FBI chainging their story to only 2 calls being made is factually incorrect.

 

[9/11-investigator]

[FONT=Verda
na]But not you,nobody fools a smart cookie like you,right?[/FONT]

It's not easy indeed.
But seriously, I was fooled until 2005 into the OCT. Then came 'inside job' and this year the ICT. I could be wrong, I could be right. I was very right in the past when I swapped all my funds and shares into gold 4 years ago. I was very wrong in that I did not see the collapse of the oil price (from 147 to 40) coming. I would have expected it to be around 200$ by the end of 2008.
The story I have defended here is my best shot, but I could be wrong. Dewdney and Bollyn defend a plane swapping theory:

Dewdney, 'Ghost riders in the sky': http://www.apfn.org/apfn/unmasking.htm

and so did Plissken, 'Flight of the bumble planes': http://www.public-action.com/911/bumble.html

It is interesting that Dewdney came up with the 'war room' idea in almost exactly the same manner as I had imagined it. He also thinks that 'Israel' did it. His theory has the advantage that he explains remote control easier than I do; the disadvantage of his theory is that he needs to make too many people directly complicit in a crime: hoarding people from 11/175/77 into 93. Too much can go wrong, like people refusing to go onto the plane. I only need Israeli outsiders planting bombs and somebody typing in a few lines from a keyboard. No messy direct involvement.

Have you ever thought that just maybe, maybe rather than employing all this new untested technology to fool the entire planet a terrorist act took place it would have been simpler just to let a terrorist action take place?

Minor detail: just wishing for Arabs to hijack planes and fly them into the towers is not enough to make it happen. Besides you had to plant these bombs in the twin towers anyway, because they will not fall down from something these buildings were designed for to withstand. Moreover you have to hope that these Arabs really fullfill what they were up to otherwise you really look bad with these towers you filled with explosives. What you should you do if the Arabs failed? Blow the towers up anyway during Silvester night?

Incidentally the phone calls that fooled the families, what guarantee was there that the families would actually step forward and volunteer their stories?

Don't understand this.

 

[9/11-investigator]

I too would like a link to KSM taking back his confession.

Post 1102.

It would be the only thing that could kep this thread from continuing in a discussion that has already been discussed in 1000 other threads on this forum. If Mr investigator wanted the answers to his question, he would have tried searching the forum to see its been addressed many times over.

Why should I do that if I have you guys to do that for me.
Nobody has presented an integral theory here before as some of the regulars here have confirmed.

I would also like to point out that his statement about the FBI chainging their story to only 2 calls being made is factually incorrect.

So what is the truth then?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Just hoovering up a few posts that I need to catch up on:

The dog and pony show better known as NIST finally admitted that WTC7 did come down with free fall speed. They had to.

[Bigoted well-poisining and uninformed speculation snipped]

mp3 21:00 - This means that the WTC7 building acted as if for an equivalent of 7-8 stories the 28 steel columns were basically removed. And the only way for this to happen is in a situation of controlled demolition.

And that means that the OCT is out and my opponents are out of business.

As usual, you're quoting someone else's work rather than bothering to do your own. This doesn't absolve you of the need to think. NIST measured an average acceleration based on an assumed point of collapse initiation of the facade. Possible explanations include that the core collapsed in advance of the facade (as we know well, this actually happened) and that connections between the core and the facade, acting in tension, transferred downwards momentum from the core to the facade; that there were elastic deformations of the building occuring before full collapse initiation, imparting a non-zero downward velocity to the roofline at the moment of collapse initiation; or simply an error in choosing the exact moment of collapse initiation in the modelling.

And, of course, the other side of the argument is still resoundingly silent: what is the evidence that a controlled demolition would behave in the way you suggest? I've yet to hear any.

There is still nothing in the observed behaviour of WTC7 that favours a controlled demolition event as the cause of collapse, there is still irrefutable audible evidence against the existence of explosives sufficiently powerful to cause the level of damage suggested here, and there is still no known method of cutting vertical columns of the size involved with thermite - no known method at all, never mind with the split-second precision argued by the demolition theorists.

I do know this recent article by David Ray Griffin, who says about the calls:

One recipient, Deena Burnett, was certain that her husband had called her several times on his cell phone because she had recognized his number on her Caller ID.

We know that there were attempts at cellphone calls which didn't connect, or connected only briefly but dropped out almost immediately. This is what would be expected if the phone was able to reach a cellphone tower but was moving too fast to transfer correctly to the next one. So suppose the following scenario took place: a passenger tried to phone the family on a cellphone a couple of times, failed, then tried again successfully with an airphone. The family member tried to answer the unsiccessful calls, recognised the caller ID number, then answered the airphone calls. The family member then either didn't notice that the airphone calls were coming from a different number, or conflated the memories of caller ID and the successful call. It's a simple explanation, which results in family members recalling cellphone calls that were in fact airphone calls.

Shall we skip this discussion since even the FBI admitted in 2006 that only 2 calls came through? The discussion has become superfluous. Thanks.

The discussion has become superfluous mainly in that it invalidates your argument that the cellphone calls were impossible. The actual sequence of events, it seemed, involved only the following easily understood phenomena:
(1) Calls from cellphones that lasted just long enough to make a connection and give caller ID information, but not long enough for a conversation, terminated by the inability of cellphone towers to transfer calls from phones moving at 400+mph.
(2) Subsequent calls from airphones from the same people.
(3) Erroneous recollections from people under extreme stress who were more focused on listening to the last messages from people they loved than on remembering phone numbers.
(4) Two successful cellphone calls made from an airliner at low altitude in a rural location with large area mobile telephony cells.

This is rather simpler and more plausible than unknown voice-morphing technology relaying information its posessors could not possibly have known, even without the nerve gas.

Dave

 

[doobiedoright]

Conspirator in my definition means somebody who really has to do something: come up with an integral plan in the first place (Zakheim), get a lease for WTC (Silverstein), instruct the Mossad to take action (Bibi, Olmert), persuade the US-gov to go to war and accept (prefabricated) Patriot Act (Cheney), play the local hero (Giulliani), let Menahem Atzmon organize that specific people have access to the planes in Boston to change the software and place canisters with gas and let the Israelis who checked in escape via a side exit and post the pictures of the 'hijackers' to the media. Let Jerome Hauer 'do the media' on 9/11. Let the Kroll brothers who became responsible for the WTC security make sure that specific vans get access to the parking garage in the basement and that specific elevators are put out of operation for 'maintenance purposes'. Let a team around demotion expert Peer Segalovitz mount the charges into the elevator shafts. Let Pete Zalewski "while trying to establish contact with the planes" send a new flight plan up via the ACARS system to the planes after he has ascertained that nobody in the cockpits respond to him anymore (and he can assume that the pilots are dead). Let Dominic Sutter handle the war room where the phone calls are being fabricated.

Where are the holes?

Yet there is not one centennial of proof for your fantasy!

 

[9/11-investigator]

JNIST measured an average acceleration based on an assumed point of collapse initiation of the facade. Possible explanations include that the core collapsed in advance of the facade (as we know well, this actually happened) and that connections between the core and the facade, acting in tension, transferred downwards momentum from the core to the facade; that there were elastic deformations of the building occuring before full collapse initiation, imparting a non-zero downward velocity to the roofline at the moment of collapse initiation; or simply an error in choosing the exact moment of collapse initiation in the modelling.

And, of course, the other side of the argument is still resoundingly silent: what is the evidence that a controlled demolition would behave in the way you suggest? I've yet to hear any.

There is still nothing in the observed behaviour of WTC7 that favours a controlled demolition event as the cause of collapse, there is still irrefutable audible evidence against the existence of explosives sufficiently powerful to cause the level of damage suggested here, and there is still no known method of cutting vertical columns of the size involved with thermite - no known method at all, never mind with the split-second precision argued by the demolition theorists.

Baloney. Why listen to me if you can listen to the Dutch demolition expert a few posts earlier. It was a classic controlled demolition, done from the bottom of WTC7. If you look at the pictures for the umptieths time you will see that the building comes down almost symmetrically. There are no 'elastic deformations' to be seen, no cracking glass, it all goes down as one big box.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Baloney. Why listen to me if you can listen to the Dutch demolition expert a few posts earlier. It was a classic controlled demolition, done from the bottom of WTC7. If you look at the pictures for the umptieths time you will see that the building comes down almost symmetrically. There are no 'elastic deformations' to be seen, no cracking glass, it all goes down as one big box.

Wrong. Take a good close look at frame by frame video of the WTC7 collapse. You will plainly see that the outline of the two roof penthouses disappear - not simultaneously, but in sequence. The larger structure disappears from view above the top ledge of the building, followed by the more gradual disappearance of the more elongated "penthouse."

That is asymmetrical.

 

[A W Smith]

Denial, not a river, a truther

Baloney. Why listen to me if you can listen to the Dutch demolition expert a few posts earlier. It was a classic controlled demolition, done from the bottom of WTC7. If you look at the pictures for the umptieths time you will see that the building comes down almost symmetrically. There are no 'elastic deformations' to be seen, no cracking glass, it all goes down as one big box.

Really? No kink? No broken glass? Are you seriously going with that?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Baloney. Why listen to me if you can listen to the Dutch demolition expert a few posts earlier.

Again, Danny Jowenko has been discussed to death round here. Note that his expert opinion was also that WTC1 and WTC2 could not possibly have been CDs, because the fires would have set off the explosives uncontrollably in the impact zones. No truther has ever been able to construct a scenario in which WTC7 was a CD and WTC1/2 were not, even to the reduced standard of rationality required by people who believe thermite is an explosive that doesn't go bang. Therefore, nobody is in any doubt that Jowenko is wrong on at least one of these points. We're only arguing, therefore, about when, rather than whether, Jowenko is wrong. That seems to override the authority you're arguing from.

It was a classic controlled demolition, done from the bottom of WTC7. If you look at the pictures for the umptieths time you will see that the building comes down almost symmetrically. There are no 'elastic deformations' to be seen, no cracking glass, it all goes down as one big box.

This is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent: controlled demolitions have a certain appearance, therefore everything with that appearance must be a controlled demolition. The correct conclusion is that everything with that appearance may be a controlled demolition, therefore we should examine other characteristics to see whether they also are present. And are they? No, it turns out that they aren't.

If you listen to the sound recordings made on 9/11, there's an obvious absence of bang associated with collapse initiation. Funnily enough, Jowenko was shown a WTC7 collapse video with no sound by the truther who wanted him to say it was a CD. Now why on earth would that be? Explosions just before collapse initiation, louder than the actual collapse, are universal characteristics of a classic controlled demolition, and are absent from this instance. Therefore this cannot be a classic controlled demolition. Yes, there is a superficial resemblance, but in fact the only real point of similarity is that the initiation is low down in the structure. When a structure fails near the bottom, for whatever cause, one would expect the gross features of the collapse to be similar. The claim that it was "a classic controlled demolition" is nothing more than uninformed speculation, and is refuted by the evidence.

Dave

 

[stateofgrace]

It is interesting that Dewdney came up with the 'war room' idea in almost exactly the same manner as I had imagined it. He also thinks that 'Israel' did it. His theory has the advantage that he explains remote control easier than I do; the disadvantage of his theory is that he needs to make too many people directly complicit in a crime: hoarding people from 11/175/77 into 93. Too much can go wrong, like people refusing to go onto the plane. I only need Israeli outsiders planting bombs and somebody typing in a few lines from a keyboard. No messy direct involvement.

Really ?so there is no messy direct involvement in planting explosives inside three building in New York then? There is no messy direct involvement in rigging planes with nerve gas? There is no messy direct involvement with voicing morphing passenger’s voices in order to fool their families? There is no direct messy involvement in not only rigging but actually remotely controlling planes into building in New York in broad day light?

Just type in a few lines in a keyboard, right?

Minor detail: just wishing for Arabs to hijack planes and fly them into the towers is not enough to make it happen.

And just wishing that the Israeli’s nerve gassed all those onboard, took remote control of the planes and slammed then into buildings full of explosives is not enough to make it happen.

Besides you had to plant these bombs in the twin towers anyway, because they will not fall down from something these buildings were designed for to withstand.

So buildings had to have explosive put in them because they were designed to withstand passenger planes being slammed into them, right? So what would have happened had the remotely controlled planed missed the towers?

Moreover you have to hope that these Arabs really fullfill what they were up to otherwise you really look bad with these towers you filled with explosives.

More over you have to hope that those who planted the explosives, nerve gassed the passengers and crew, remotely piloted the planes and then blew up the towers have to fulfil what they were up because it would really bad if a single one that was involved in any of this actually showed a shred of remorse and spilt the beans, right?

It's going to look really bad, isn't it if a single thing does wrong with your plan?

What you should you do if the Arabs failed?

And what would happen if just one of the many elements with within this theory of yours failed? What happens in the nerve gas wasn't release in one of the planes? What happens if the voice morphing failed? What happens if one of the families released they were not talking to their loved one? What happens if the remote control for the planes fails? What happens if the explosives inside WTC 1 and 2 failed because they were damaged by a plane flying into the buildings? What happens if the explosives went off as soon as they planes hit?

What would your "perps” have done, how would they have over come this if a single element in your theory fails it all fails. So how did they over come all this?

Blow the towers up anyway during Silvester night?

No, better to blow them up in broadday light and hope nobody notices , right?

Don't understand this.

Of course you don't dear boy.

You still have not linked to a story backing this claim.

KSM withdrew his 'confession'

Please do so, or retract this, post 1102 goes nowhere near backing this.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Post 1102.

In the story linked from post #1102, KSM is indeed said to have withdrawn his offer to plead guilty. This isn't quite the same as withdrawing (or rather repudiating) a confession to his actions, but rather the withdrawal of the offer to accept criminal responsibility for those actions and move directly to sentencing. That's the sort of fine distinction that conspiracy theorists like to ignore in favour of a misinterpretation that supports their fantasies. In fact it appears that the plea was withdrawn when the competence of two co-defendents to stand trial was questioned. I'm not quite sure why this would be an issue, unless KSM and the other two are trying for group martyrdom and don't like the idea that their co-defendants may not die with them.

Dave

 

[TjW]

Baloney. Why listen to me if you can listen to the Dutch demolition expert a few posts earlier. It was a classic controlled demolition, done from the bottom of WTC7. If you look at the pictures for the umptieths time you will see that the building comes down almost symmetrically. There are no 'elastic deformations' to be seen, no cracking glass, it all goes down as one big box.

Of course that same expert stated that WTC 1 & 2 were not controlled demolitions.

Does your theory account for why 7 would be CD and 1 and 2 would not?

 

[Alt+F4]

Yes.

"Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government." So begins a statement being delivered by Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special Operations Command.

At least the voice sounds amazingly like him.

Link

This was debunked by the very scientist in the article you linked to. A few years ago I emailed Dr. George Papcun, who invented the voice morphing technology you refer to. Ron Wieck did as well. Here is Dr. Papcun's reply:

Dear Mr. Wieck,

Following please find an amended version of my commenary on Voice Morphing and the alleged 911 conspiracy. You may post it with attribution, cleaning up the html as needed.

Sincerely,
George Papcun, Ph.D.


However, a major problem for their allegation, given that they claim there were no hijackers, is that the passengers on United Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania called home with desperate messages to loved ones, in which they said there were hijackers. Accordingly, the conspiracy theory purveyors have needed to claim that someone (namely, me) created the voices of the passengers in those phone calls. That allegation is plainly outrageous and demeaning to the memories of those courageous passengers.

I originally developed the technology of voice morphing, the technology by which it is possible to make someone seem to say something they did not say (see www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm ) and coined the phrase. Therefore, I know what would have been required to create such bogus calls. Practical considerations preclude making counterfeit telephone calls in this situation. For example, it is necessary to have samples of the voices of the people to be imitated. In situations like this, where the goal is to participate in an unconstrained conversation, the voice sample must be extensive. I cannot imagine how I might have obtained extensive samples of the voices of the passengers on Flight 93, especially not knowing which of them would call home. Additionally, in this situation it would be necessary to know what someone would say to his or her loved ones under such circumstances. What pet names would be used? What references would be made to children and other loved ones? Do believers actually suppose that the government (or I) listens in to everyone’s pillow talk? In a separate essay, I will cover the technical aspects of voice morphing, which will further demonstrate the implausibility of the scenario set forth by the purveyors of conspiracy theories.

Whether such wild-eyed theories are worth being concerned about is problematic. However, in their own words, their conspiracy theory organization “has grown from a cult following to a grassroots organism that can no longer be contained” (op cit). I have received email from a high school social studies teacher who told me that her students actually believe that I did everything the purveyors of conspiracy theories say I did. Why they would so mistrust their government and be so naïve with regard to technical issues are interesting questions, albeit matters well beyond the scope of this essay.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89861

 

[elbe]

Minor detail: just wishing for Arabs to hijack planes and fly them into the towers is not enough to make it happen. Besides you had to plant these bombs in the twin towers anyway, because they will not fall down from something these buildings were designed for to withstand. Moreover you have to hope that these Arabs really fullfill what they were up to otherwise you really look bad with these towers you filled with explosives. What you should you do if the Arabs failed? Blow the towers up anyway during Silvester night?

Why did the buildings need to fall at all then? The planes crashing into them would have caused significant damage even if it did not result in collapse and, I believe, the national response would have been similar as we were still attacked by terrorists who crashed our own planes into them.

Adding bombs to the building to collapse them is just needlessly complex and a sign of poor planning.