How 9/11 was done

[Dr Adequate]

Well, I'm puzzled by the behaviour of Silverstein. If he obtained a lease (as in rent) then I don't understand why he does all the sueing, rather than the real owner, the NYPA.

Because he paid to insure the buildings and they didn't.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I have discovered that the Silverstein family was absent (in the way described) on the day that I posted it and clearly AFTER I had identified Larry as being a central plotter.

The point is that had Silverstein been killed in the attacks, you would not have chosen to believe that he was a central plotter. Therefore, when you use the fact that he survived as an argument for his guilt, you are committing the a priori/a posteriori fallacy.

That's normally what the word "lease" means. This could be simply answered by consulting a dictionary. A lease is "A contract granting use or occupation of property during a specified period in exchange for a specified rent." Payment in respect of a lease is a therefore a payment in exchange for an exclusive right to rent a property for the fixed period of the lease, therefore the total cost of using the property over this period is the cost of the lease plus the rent charged during the period of the lease. Again, this is basic, fundamental information that you haven't bothered to acquire.

Never said anything of the sort... the Mossad only needed to know the telephone numbers of the people who later were said to have made phone calls from the planes (plus some extra for reserve). They could have obtained these by eavesdropping on the telephone of the airline booking office. Once you have a set of telephone numbers you can start eavesdropping on these people to learn a bit about them and to collect sound samples to feed your voice morphing computer.

But your theory requires that everyone booked on the flights made enough calls, and that enough of those calls were intercepted, to compile enough samples to cover all the required phonemes, after they booked their flights. For at least three of the passengers who made calls, you have no evidence that they made any calls at all after making the decision to board the relevant flight, and from the timescales involved it's highly unlikely that they could have made enough to provide a sufficiently large sample. And this is without examining the feasibility of the voice-morphing technology being good enough at that time to fool relatives, and without considering personal information that the conspirators couldn't have known. Therefore, you haven't even established that your hypothesis is feasible, never mind that it's better supported by the evidence than any other hypothesis.

Dave

 

[9/11-investigator]

How Israel Helps Eavesdrop On US Citizens

An essential element of my theory is that the Mossad could easily eavesdrop on the future 9/11 passengers. Here is a one month old review of a brand new book by James Bamford about just this: "The Shadow Factory".

From the review:

After the 11 September 2001 attacks, the United States government launched a massive program to spy on millions of its own citizens. Through the top secret National Security Agency (NSA), it has pursued "access to billions of private hard-line, cell, and wireless telephone conversations;

Bamford casts light on this effort, including a detailed account of how spying on American citizens has been outsourced to several companies closely linked to Israel's intelligence services.

It is well-known that the two largest American telecom companies AT&T and Verizon collaborated with the US government to allow illegal eavesdropping on their customers.

What is less well-known is that AT&T and Verizon handed "the bugging of their entire networks -- carrying billions of American communications every day" to two companies founded in Israel. Verint and Narus, as they are called, are "superintrusive -- conducting mass surveillance on both international and domestic communications 24/7,"

Virtually all US voice and data communications and much from the rest of the world can be remotely accessed by these companies in Israel, which Bamford describes as "the eavesdropping capital of the world."

Israel's spy agencies have long had a revolving-door relationship with Verint and Narus and other Israeli military-security firms.

 

[Dr Adequate]

How Israel Helps Eavesdrop On US Citizens

An essential element of my theory is that the Mossad could easily eavesdrop on the future 9/11 passengers. Here is a one month old review of a brand new book by James Bamford about just this: "The Shadow Factory".

From the review:

After the 11 September 2001 attacks, the United States government launched a massive program to spy on millions of its own citizens. Through the top secret National Security Agency (NSA), it has pursued "access to billions of private hard-line, cell, and wireless telephone conversations;

Bamford casts light on this effort, including a detailed account of how spying on American citizens has been outsourced to several companies closely linked to Israel's intelligence services.

It is well-known that the two largest American telecom companies AT&T and Verizon collaborated with the US government to allow illegal eavesdropping on their customers.

What is less well-known is that AT&T and Verizon handed "the bugging of their entire networks -- carrying billions of American communications every day" to two companies founded in Israel. Verint and Narus, as they are called, are "superintrusive -- conducting mass surveillance on both international and domestic communications 24/7,"

Virtually all US voice and data communications and much from the rest of the world can be remotely accessed by these companies in Israel, which Bamford describes as "the eavesdropping capital of the world."

Israel's spy agencies have long had a revolving-door relationship with Verint and Narus and other Israeli military-security firms.

Oh look, another technical non-solution to your problems.

 

[BCR]

Sounds good 911...maybe that is why we have not been attacked in 7 years

 

[Dave Rogers]

9/11-investigator, please, please, please just read your own ******* source! Particularly the words, "After the 11 September 2001 attacks". Particularly the word "After". Look it up if you need to know what it means.

Dave

 

[9/11-investigator]

It's very simple. PANYNJ owns the site, Silverstein owned the buildings. Silverstein leases the land in return for putting his own buildings on it and generating business that way. The person with the proper standing to sue is the owner of the buildings, because those were what got destroyed by the jet impacts and fires on 9/11. With the buildings gone, he has no income from the tenants, but with the land still there and leased to him, he's still forced to pay his lease to PANYNJ

PANYNJ couldn't be the ones to sue Swiss Re. They didn't construct the buildings, and they weren't the ones collecting profits from the rents and other income generation. Silverstein was.

This is a real informative post. I had missed the distinction between land and buildings. Thanks. I'll come back later on this issue.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

This is a real informative post. I had missed the distinction between land and buildings. Thanks. I'll come back later on this issue.

Will you?

Or, as I suspect, will you ignore it for a few pages, maybe a few days, then after people have stopped expecting you to answer questions on it (as they have only limited patience) and then triumphantly claim it's suspicious that Silverstein sued and not the land owner?

See, I and others here have no reason to suspect that you will, in any way, actually face up to this, because of your abysmal track record (see: voice manipulation software, remote control of aircraft etc.)

Out of curiosity though, I have one question. Why DO you blame the Jews? Seriously?

There is no evidence, not even circumstantial, and you don't seem to be a believer in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy (as say, Alex Jones is) so what's the deal?

 

[Ragnarok]

I'm sick of hearing this "have you got evidence" crap! Has anyone on this board got evidence that any government agency is carrying out secret projects that only very few people are privy to information about?

Answer: No!

Does that mean NO GOVERNMENT is carrying out secret projects?

Answer: No!

 

[Bell]

No.

Then you can not know why Jack Grandcolas used that simile. And it then most certainly is not possible to conclude from his remark that the phonecalls were faked.

Here's an impression of the phone calls of 9/11, under the title "Shockingly Calm".

Oh my, another truther blog that implies a lot but accusses nothing.

Descriptions of these calls, however, reveal something odd. According to the official story we have been told, the callers were in an unprecedented crisis, stuck on planes under the control of murderous terrorists, and with no knowledge of whether they were going to be allowed to live or die.

Certainly the passengers on AA11, UA175 and possibly AA77 did not know they where going to die at the hands of the hijackers, crashing the planes into buildings. For all they knew, it was 'another' hijacking. Probably landing the plane someweher and make some demands.

Only on UA93 (but possibly also on AA77) did the passengers learn what they were involved in, and that they most certainly were going to die. But only after they called their loved ones who told them about the attacks.

After the initial attack on the cockpit, the situation settled, so to speak, and the passengers must have been waiting for the rest of the hijacking to play out, believing that they would land somewhere. That passengers and crew made phonecalls in that period and remained 'shockingly calm' is not strange at all.

But I guess in conspiracy land all the passengers should have started to panic the moment the hijacking commensed and should have continue screaming until they where murdered when the hijackers crashed the planes.

 

[Bell]

I'm sick of hearing this "have you got evidence" crap! Has anyone on this board got evidence that any government agency is carrying out secret projects that only very few people are privy to information about?

Answer: No!

Does that mean NO GOVERNMENT is carrying out secret projects?

Answer: No!

I'm sorry you don't feel well. But it helps the conspiracy site of things when you guys can back up your theories about massmurdering governments with some factual evidence. Else, you know, all you have is but theories.

 

[Ragnarok]

Then you can not know why Jack Grandcolas used that simile. And it then most certainly is not possible to conclude from his remark that the phonecalls were faked.



Oh my, another truther blog that implies a lot but accusses nothing.



Certainly the passengers on AA11, UA175 and possibly AA77 did not know they where going to die at the hands of the hijackers, crashing the planes into buildings. For all they knew, it was 'another' hijacking. Probably landing the plane someweher and make some demands.

Only on UA93 (but possibly also on AA77) did the passengers learn what they were involved in, and that they most certainly were going to die. But only after they called their loved ones who told them about the attacks.

After the initial attack on the cockpit, the situation settled, so to speak, and the passengers must have been waiting for the rest of the hijacking to play out, believing that they would land somewhere. That passengers and crew made phonecalls in that period and remained 'shockingly calm' is not strange at all.

But I guess in conspiracy land all the passengers should have started to panic the moment the hijacking commensed and should have continue screaming until they where murdered when the hijackers crashed the planes.

Hmmm...are you saying that those on the flights that hit the towers would likely have had no idea what was happening, until they hit the towers? Nobody thought, "Hey, we're being hijacked AND we are flying extremely low! Time to panic!"?

 

[Bell]

Hmmm...are you saying that those on the flights that hit the towers would likely have had no idea what was happening, until they hit the towers? Nobody thought, "Hey, we're being hijacked AND we are flying extremely low! Time to panic!"?

Not initialy, no.

Once the passengers got aware of their fate, the situation changed:

Peter Hanson made a second phone call to his father at 09:00:
"It's getting bad, Dad. A stewardess was stabbed. They seem to have knives and Mace. They said they have a bomb. It's getting very bad on the plane. Passengers are throwing up and getting sick. The plane is making jerky movements. I don't think the pilot is flying the plane. I think we are going down. I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building. Don't worry, Dad. If it happens, it'll be very fast....Oh My God.., oh my God, oh my God."
As the call abruptly ended, Hanson's father heard a woman screaming.

Source

Certainly not 'shockingly calm'

 

[Ragnarok]

I'm sorry you don't feel well. But it helps the conspiracy site of things when you guys can back up your theories about massmurdering governments with some factual evidence. Else, you know, all you have is but theories.

I think you'll find that most "science facts" start out as "science theories", but if people are unprepared to even entertain 'certain theories', what chance is there of producing 'evidence' that is likely to be acceptable?

 

[calebprime]

They do exactly what 'I want': you speak in a microphone and in your headset you hear the voice of somebody else.

The voices in the first video between 1:22 and 1:28 did not sound 'ridiculous' at all.

I can't let this go.

That's because, at 1:22 etc., they are two different people. They say so! This doesn't support your case.

The rest of that video is the usual effect of "voice + effect"--that is, it doesn't sound like a different person, it sounds artificial. Great if you want the passengers to sound like Darth Vader, but not good for much else--except silliness.

The other example was a technique where a voice input triggers a synthesized or pre-recorded output--it's not really morphing, at all. It wouldn't be capable of doing an imitation of a different voice. It's specialized.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Has anyone on this board got evidence that any government agency is carrying out secret projects that only very few people are privy to information about?

There is overwhelming evidence from history that government agencies have in the past carried out secret projects that only very few people are privy to information about. This is why the argument, "Your theory can't be true because it would require the government to be carrying out a secret project that only very few people are privy to information about", is only encountered as a strawman representation by conspiracy theorists of the rationalist's position.

Dave

 

[Disbelief]

I think you'll find that most "science facts" start out as "science theories", but if people are unprepared to even entertain 'certain theories', what chance is there of producing 'evidence' that is likely to be acceptable?

None of the truther garbage has anything to do with science, as in the abundant speculation they engage in, or it is flawed science like anything from Gage. We are asking for real evidence, not the crap that is being thrown at the wall.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I think you'll find that most "science facts" start out as "science theories", but if people are unprepared to even entertain 'certain theories', what chance is there of producing 'evidence' that is likely to be acceptable?

Here, on the other hand, you have an audience willing and eager to consider 9/11 conspiracy theories, why else are you posting here?

Now make with the evidence.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I'm sick of hearing this "have you got evidence" crap! Has anyone on this board got evidence that any government agency is carrying out secret projects that only very few people are privy to information about?

Answer: No!

Does that mean NO GOVERNMENT is carrying out secret projects?

Answer: No!

That's a misstatement of people's stances here. No one in his or her right mind would deny secret goverment projects; the existence of the B-1 and B-2 bombers, F-117, and back in its day, the SR-71 is total proof that such "Black" projects exist. What we here are doing is asking 9/11-investigator to actually tie these projects in with the September 11th events. For example, Dave Rodgers just pointed out that one of 9/11-investigator's sources supposedly supporting one of his contentions comes out and dates it as a project used after 9/11/2001. 9/11-investigator provided evidence of a project, but produced zero tie-in with the events that day.

When we're asking for proof, showing the mere existence of a secret project is insufficient. It must be demonstrated that the project was also used during 9/11 in the specific mannner alleged. As another example: Eavesdropping technology is nothing new - the police have been using implementations of this sort of technology for years to gather evidence for criminal investigations - but merely citing the existence of a technology, and making weakly supported links to the Israeli intelligence agency is not proof that it was used on 9/11. The "evidence" we're asking for is not merely of a proposal's existence. It's also of its application.

Hmmm...are you saying that those on the flights that hit the towers would likely have had no idea what was happening, until they hit the towers? Nobody thought, "Hey, we're being hijacked AND we are flying extremely low! Time to panic!"?

It is fallacious thinking to presume a uniform reaction across a group of individuals, and it is cherry picking to single out only two of the multitude of factors influencing hijacking victims' behaviors. For one, while Betty Ong was mostly composed, you could hear the fear in her voice. For two, I linked a 911 call having nothing to do with September 11th earlier, and that lady sounded quite calm for a large majority of the call while someone was breaking into her house. In fact, she was only starting to get excited after her husband (?) went to confront, then shoot the intruder during that call. Again, you cannot subscribe to the notion that people in set circumstances behave in specific ways. There are limits to the range of reactions, but it's not limited to one, specific mode of behavior.

Furthermore, merely pointing out the "low" and "hijacked" motivations as reason to sound panicked excludes other factors. For example, on one flight, the hijackers were recorded as telling passengers to sit and remain calm (I think that was the flight where the hijacker was accidentally keying the radio and transmitting to the air traffic controllers instead of the passenger cabin speakers). Add to that the fact that previous hijackings before 9/11 ended on the ground with some demand being fulfilled, so passengers were conditioned by news reports and other factors (aircrew instructions, and actual behavior during emergencies, etc.) to cooperate. They'd eventually be released, they thought. It was only Flight 93 where the passengers realized that these hijackings were different, and as everyone remembers, they took steps at that point. But getting back to the original point, the fact is that calm behavior is indeed one of the very likely responses given all the information about the attacks. Passengers would think they'd merely be diverted, not flew into a building. Also, passengers would of course not want to draw attention frmo the hijackers to themselves, so they'd be as even voiced as possible. My point here is that there are other factors determining passenger reactions beyond the two you cited, and making the argument in the manner you did ignores those other factors.

 

[Bell]

I think you'll find that most "science facts" start out as "science theories", but if people are unprepared to even entertain 'certain theories', what chance is there of producing 'evidence' that is likely to be acceptable?

How come those "science theories" end up as "science facts"?

Certainly not because some scientist pastes his theories a bazillion times on the interwebs.

They provide evidence