Muslim researcher explains how 9/11 was made

[JohnG]

Thanks to keep all hatred for yoruself. I am a human, equal to all humans on teh Earth.

Except for the Jews, right?

BTW, I don't hate you or anyone else. I certainly don't have some blanket hate for members any ethnic or religious group. People who do hate others for the color of their skin or their ethnic heritage or the religion they practice kind of get on my nerves, though.

If you have a problem with Israel and some its policies pertaining to the Palestinians, fair enough. Plenty of people of good will would probably agree with you to a certain extent. I can't help but think though that your brand of hatred runs deeper and has a longer history than that.

It's become clear to me despite your protestations to the contrary that you began with an assumption of innocence on the part of the 19 Muslim hijackers and then worked your way backwards, forcing you to cling to laughably absurd theories (you really need to let go of the whole "synchronized attacks" and "tomahawk" nonsense, you are making a fool of yourself). Adults accept unpleasant truths, even if the truth puts members of ones own family/tribe/country/religion in an unfavorable light. Muslims perpetrated the most infamous terrorist attack in history. Accept that and move on with your life. The world has grown too small for your bronze age brand of nonsense. If you can't grow up at least learn to live and let live.

barış

 

[tsig]

It's not imperative. It's an evidence that has been repeated in four planes and 8 pilots failed to do that. So that needs to be explained with realistic and true evidence. It's false to tell that the hijackers acted so quickly that none were able to key the code. The first thing that the hijackers should do is asking to the pilots to leave their seat. And that takes enough time for one of the pilots to enter the code.

Using that evidence and adding the following evidences, ....
- The first hijack happened within 16 seconds between two unexplained orders of Pete Zalewski. Only extremely quick dead could make that.
- We heard almost nothing about the pilots after takeover, not also by the false phone calls.
- It's impossible to make these hijacks using automatic control systems while the pilots are on board. The pilots should have been killed immediately.
... we should conclude that the pilots were gassed at the beginning of the hijacks. The passengers also have been gassed by the same gas injection into the plane. After that time, only on board automatic system was working on board.

Make up your mind.

 

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by mehmetin
--The first thing that the hijackers should do is asking to the pilots to leave their seat.
--The pilots should have been killed immediately.

 

[Zep]

I think we saw early on in the piece that Mehmet hasn't got a very good grasp of the reality of the situation, either in the cockpit of a plane, in air-traffic control, or politically. He has his fixed agenda, and neither facts nor argument are going to sway him from that. So obviously he isn't an unbiased researcher, nor even a real researcher at all. He's an opportunistic and simplistic propagandist for an unhealthy and misguided mindset. Every piece of his puzzle is hammered into the wrong place to form only the picture he wants to see. And that's rather sad, really. What a waste of a brain...

 

[Lenbrazil]

I think we saw early on in the piece that Mehmet hasn't got a very good grasp of the reality of the situation, either in the cockpit of a plane, in air-traffic control, or politically. He has his fixed agenda, and neither facts nor argument are going to sway him from that. So obviously he isn't an unbiased researcher, nor even a real researcher at all. He's an opportunistic and simplistic propagandist for an unhealthy and misguided mindset. Every piece of his puzzle is hammered into the wrong place to form only the picture he wants to see. And that's rather sad, really. What a waste of a brain...

But none of his claims have ever been debunked!

 

[firecoins]

2- The terrorists to takeover the first plane exactly within the 16 seconds time gap between two orders of the flight controller Pete Zalewski? Zero probably again. The only possibility is that Pete Zalewski ( a Jew people ) was part of the team and he managed to give two successive orders within 16 seconds to check if the poison gas killed the pilots: First order to establish the communication line with the pilots and permit to the central team to switch on the on board missile control system; second order to check that the pilots will not answer, they are dead.

Pete Zalewski is a Jew People. I am also a Jew People. The Jew People did not commit 9/11. The Mulsim People in the group known as the Al Qeda people did it.

Is this a real thread?

19 Muslim hijacked 4 aircraft and crashed 3 of them into buildings. They were indeed on the passenger lists. They were video taped getting into the planes.Tear Gas was used to in at least 1 of the attack according to flight attendat Betty Ong's phone call on flight 11. Betty Ong also identified where the hijackers were sitting. We know who did it. Mossad and Israel and the "Jew People" had nothing to do with it. Sorry.

 

[Arus808]

This is nonsense. Do you have a watch? Can you set it? I have synchronized many things with other people without talking to them. This idea is nonsense, does not make sense.

Yeah, its like he never asked someone to meet him somewhere at a certain time, or orgnaized a group to go to the movies together and they are coming from all different parts of the city.

Damn, wished they invented something that could tell us the time of day.

 

[Zep]

But none of his claims have ever been debunked!

..............what claims? It's all evidence-free handwaving and rabid antisemitic ranting. What's to debunk?

 

[Crazytimes]

I am curious to know if he thinks Muslims are responsible for ANY terrorist attack since 9/11 or was that Bush and the evil Jews also ?

 

[Zep]

I am curious to know if he thinks Muslims are responsible for ANY terrorist attack since 9/11 or was that Bush and the evil Jews also ?

Chances are any evidence they were will be discarded as unthinkable, while any wildly unfounded speculation it was a Jewish plot will be wholeheartedly accepted without any questions.

 

[240-185]

And again, this post explains all:

Well, I can only speak to your conspiracy theory so far, since it seems to be in a somewhat flexible state.

Nonetheless, let's see if we can compare the two. I shall deal here only with the hijacking/remote takeover of the planes, since this seems to be the crucial element.

Let's put the two hypotheses side by side and see how they stack up.



The Accused

The hijackers were:

19 people willing to attack their sworn enemy and gain instant access to the most exclusive district of Paradise.

Each of them has been named and identified:

[qimg]http://www.danzfamily.com/pictures/pictures02/hijackers.jpg[/qimg]

The Mossad conspirators were:

An estimated 40-60 people willing to attack their sworn ally and keep quiet about it for ever. How the 40-60 estimate was arrived at I have no idea, nor whether it includes people who were subverted but not "in the loop".

Few names have been named. Occasionally a Truther will try to make out a case against Larry Silverstein on the basis that he once said "pull".



The Motive

The hijackers' target:

Al Qaeda's sworn enemy.

Mossad's target:

Israel's sworn ally.

Consequences for the hijackers if they're detected before the execution of their plot:

Al Qaeda loses nineteen operatives, causes some terror, is already at war with the US so has nothing to lose on that score, possibly attracts more donations.

Consequences for Mossad if they're detected before the execution of their plot:

Israel loses its best ally, probably all its other Western allies, and most likely its chances of survival.

Consequences for the hijackers if their identity is discovered after the crime:

None whatsoever.

Consequences for Mossad if their identity is discovered after the crime:

See above; only worse, because an actual atrocity is more shocking than a thwarted one.

The hijackers stand to gain:

Al Qaeda's greatest victory ever against the infidel, plus 72 virgins apiece.

Mossad stand to gain:

The support of the US for Israel ... which they already have ... and would lose instantly if they were found out.



Previous Record

Previous Muslim terrorist attacks or attempted attacks on American soil:

• The Millenium LAX bomb plot.
• The 1993 WTC attack.
• The blind sheihk plan to bomb the NYC tunnels.
• The plot to blow up a NYC subway in Brooklyn.
• The murder of tourists on the top of the Empire State Building.

This list is not necessarily exhaustive, nor of course does it include attacks on Americans abroad, such as the attack on the USS Cole.

Previous Mossad attacks or attempted attacks on American soil:

• I got nothing.

The Means

The hijackers needed:

• Four trained pilots, which they had.
• Knives, which they bought.
• Airplane tickets, which they bought.

Mossad needed:

• Nonexistent real-time voice morphing software which could imitate the voices of people who Mossad couldn't have predicted would be on the planes with such perfection as to fool their own families.
• A nonexistent device which allows them to fly a jumbo jet by remote control.
• Some way of smuggling nerve gas onto airplanes without getting on board themselves.
• To fake all the actions, not to mention the appearance, of the nineteen "hijackers" for a couple of years, undetected by their family and friends, including one final tour de force where they manage to pretend to board airplanes while in reality "slipping out the side".

The Opportunity

The hijackers needed:

To get on the planes, which they did.

Mossad needed:

Sheesh, where do you start? Just how many people do they need to subvert to have any opportunity?



The Evidence

The evidence for the hijackers taking over the planes by force includes:

• Their martyrdom tapes.
• Further claims of responsibility by Al Qaeda top brass.
• Their acquisition of piloting skills (with no subsequent attempts to become commerical pilots).
• Their purchase of the requisite weapons, plane tickets, etc.
• Evidence and witnesses showing that they checked in and boarded.
• DNA evidence matching bodies from ground zero to vehicles and hotel rooms used by the hijackers.
• The fact that five (or in one case four) of this group now known to be associated with one another and with al Qaeda were on each of the hijacked planes.
• Cockpit recordings of men speaking in Arabic.
• Eyewitness accounts from the planes.

The evidence for Mossad taking over the planes by remote control includes:

• Zilch.

The evidence against the hijackers taking over the planes by force includes:

• Nada

The evidence against Mossad taking over the planes by remote control includes:

• It's technically impossible.
• There's no evidence for it.
• All the evidence that proves that the planes were actually hijacked, including tricky stuff like eyewitness acounts and DNA evidence and al Qaeda claiming responsibility.

The Plea

Al Qaeda:

Proudly claim responsibility.

Mossad:

Say that al Qaeda did it.



The Verdict

Well, 9/11-researcher?

Against whom is there the stronger case?

As has been pointed out to you, you are accusing people of mass murder, this is not a game.

 

[Oystein]

The first part of my power point file named "anomalies" is just suspicious questions about the official stroy. I do not use these arguments to prove my claims. These are not important for me, they can be true or wrong, it's meaningless to discuss about them.

It is not wise to include meaningless stuff in a presentation if you want to get people's attention, keep their attention, and convince them. I suggest that you better delete the first 20 or so pages of your presentation.

They only shows that the evidence supporting the official story are too weak.

No, this is incorrect.
I showed you that your claims, nearly all of them, are FALSE.
They therefore do NOT show that the evidence for the commonly held story is too weak. The opposite is true: If you exchange your FALSE claims with the actual FACTS, you will find that the evidence for the official story is indeed very very strong.

However, you have not presented any evidence and no logically compelling argument for your theory.
Nothing.

 

[Oystein]

I won’t repeat all arguments to everybody.

Post 19:
- Whay the succession of the hijacks is impossible was explained. If you read my ppt file you’ll understand too.

You did not provide any material evidence or compelling logic.

- Why material was planted in the B737 that hit the Pentagon is explained too.

You did not provide any material evidence or compelling logic.

- The DNA identification of AA77 passengers did not show any terrorist (this is also explained).

This is not true.

- The presence of radio explosives and their placement is explained in my ppt file slides 44 - 54.1.

You did not provide any material evidence or compelling logic.

- Bush and Mossad’s involvement is explained in section “Disinformation and Perpetrators” of my web site.

You did not provide any material evidence or compelling logic.

Posts 22 & 24:
The anomalies section of my web site is just for information. It’s not the main claim. Useless to discuss it before understanding how the events were made.

I recommend you delete all useless pages from your presentation.

Post 25:
These are my claims that I explain in the following slides. The evidences are given there. Why should I repeat them? No reason.

No material evidence, only speculation.

Post 29: Here you have some arguments, but you have no logics. You are just making non supported claims. You should think a little bit more. Any way here is your post:

I considered such over exposition, but nothing can explain such brightness difference.

Of course overexposition explains such brightness. Overexposition is DEFINED as "too much brightness". Apparently, you don't understand the basics of digital photography.

In the following slides you’ll find the evidence. I’ll not give all evidence inside one single slide!

I did not find any material evidence that any of the methods, devices and materials that you claim were used were actually used.

These aspects were explained. The small overlap is just the time duration when one plane was flying near its target in autonomous operation, the team can begin to control the next one. That happened in all planes. (This is a repeat in that thread.)

Four different teams can not make such succession, each deviation beginning minutes before the precedent ends. That’s the conclusion of the slide 9.

This is a bare-assed claim, and it is false. In fact, when the four teams hijack planes that had scheduled take-off within 45 minutes of one another, such overlaps can be expected as one of the most likely timelines! Otherwise, simple coincidence would suffice as explanation. This is what others have described as the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy". If you don't know what it is, look it up in the English Wikipedia. It is the fallacy of interpreting a coincidental event or series events ex post as having occurred according to some pattern or plan. The fact is, that any random sequence of events that is played only once can be made to fit some pattern, even though that pattern is not the explanation for the sequence.

Your logic is seriously flawed!

 

[Oystein]

If you are a hijacker, what would you do? Immediately attack the pilots, cut their throats and put blood everywhere by risking some malfunction in some instruments? Or at first ask them to leave their seat? Sure, ask them to leave their seat. That happened in all hijacks. So your imagination is too much flawed?

I would cut their throats first, so the pilot can't fight against me. The blood will mostly spill on their clothes and the chair - little danger there.
Pilots often drink coffee in their seats. Sometimes they spill some coffee. I never heard that a plane crashed because coffee spilled into the dashboard.

You only imagine this. You probable never sat in a real cockpit during flight, did you?

Except if the time gap between these two communications is only 16 seconds and that the pilots changed from “totally normal” operation to “totally silent” operation!

This is a good reason to suspect that the terrorist cut throats first.

That coincidence is suspicious. The reason to give these two orders at that moment is also not explained. Were there really any reason for these two successive orders? I am doubtful.

You obviously have never sat in an air traffic control (ATC) facility, never read transcipts of ATC communication, or talked to a real ATC person.

One JREF member, nickname "Cheap Shot", is an ATC. Write to him about any questions you might have about what ATCs do and don't! Cheap Shot knows Pete Zalewski personally, by the way. You can ask about Pete, too.

 

[Oystein]

You still have to prove the presence of 19 people who are willing to suicide themself in the planes. Nothing proves the presence of 19 terrorists.

This is false.
The 19 appear on the passenger lists.
The DNA of several was found.
Personal items of some were found.
Some are shown on security cameras in the airport before boarding the plane.
I have seen video of at least 2 of these 19 (Atta and one other) visiting Osama Bin Laden in his mansion in Kandahar.
The plane tickets and the money to pay for the tickets has been traced to the group.
[ETA]The voice of some hijackers was recorderd from ATC radio traffic that spoke in the cockpit with an Arab accent.[/ETA]
In short: There is very much material evidence that links 19 Arab passengers of the 4 planes to Osama Bin Laden, and a terror cell.

I am speaking about automatic systems that can hit precise target. The only one which is reliable, known, proved and used by many people in USA is the "tomahawk control system". Every evidence is consistent with such control system.

This is false. There are other reliable, known, proved and used systems that can hit precise targets. The most reliable, best known and proved, most used such system is called "pilot". Pilots reliably hit targets precisely every day, all the time.
Planes and cockpits are designed to make it easy for pilots to hit targets.

Obviously, you have never flown a plane or even used a real, good flight simulator.
Several members of JREF are pilots. Ask beachnut or Reheat if pilots can hit targets precisely.

By the way, I have "flown" on a real big Boeing 707 flight simulator. I can tell you that it is very easy to hit very large and visible targets like the twin towers or the Pentagon. I ask you to try it yourself with a simulator. I guarantee you that you only need to practice for 10 minutes until you, too, have the ability to hit targets as large as the twin towers or the Pentagon.

Not possible by the unknown delays on take offs. It was impossible to predefine any takeover time for all planes before take off. So any synchronisation plan is impossible. The only possibility is ONE TEAM made operation.

Yes possible, and nearly inevitable. Texas Sharpshooter fallacy!

I just know how and why ONE TEAM will control the planes, and all evidence is consistent with it.

You just know? But you have no evidence!

Your will, but that's not the truth. I do not defend any criminal, I am identifying the criminals, and they were Americans and Israelis.

In your imagination.

The Jewishness is not evidence of wrong doing. But in case of Dr. Bazant, Tim Donald Timemrman and Pete Zalewski, their Jewishness is the only explanation why they may lied and/or participated to the events. Their jewishness is not a natural behavior, it's the need to help Israeli perpetrators who asked them help.

Anti-semitic drivel.

Where is your evidence that Zalewski and Bazant are even Jews?

 

[Oystein]

Zalewski and Bazant names are used by Jew people.

I know many people with names that are used by Jews (for example Zimmermann, Grün, ...) who are not Jews at all. This is no evidence.

So I conclude you have NO material evidence that they are Jews, right?
Since you demand from us that only claims for which we have logic and material evidence is okay, I ask you to use the same standard and retract your claim that Zalewski and Bazant are Jews!

Zalewski gave two successive unexplained orders exactly at the time of deviation of AA11.

No, there is no explanation lacking. You don't know how ACTs communicate with pilots.

In a one team operation, they needed to make these two successive orders to check the first operation of the first time used control system. And it worked well.

In your imagination only. No material evidence for this, no compelling logic.

Bazant is one of the world-leading professors of Structural Engineering! And he undersigned one of the biggest wrong report ever heard and he made that within two days. That's suspicious. Why he is wrong?
1- The free fall operation is impossible by natural collapse. Even if we consider his improbable outer columns buckling, the inner core columns could never buckle. So they will always bore some weight and thus free fall operation is impossible.

None of the buildings dropped in free fall. This is a LIE. Please don't use that LIE as argument.
Of course core columns can buckle when overloaded. You obviously do not understant structural engineering. We have several engineers here at JREF. Ask them if you have any questions.

2- The upper part does not fall in one part from top to bottom.

You simply claim this, but where is your evidence and your logic?

3- The lower columns are too much thicker than upper columns; the progressive collapse up to the ground is impossible.

False. Bazant has done the mathematics. It is easy to follow. You apparently do not understand the paper that Bazant published 2 days after the event. He was able to publish so quickly, because the computation really is so very easy.
By the way, I once computed my own very simple model, using a different approach (I looked more at momentum, Bazant more at energy), and came to nearly the same result.
You need to talk to real engineers and ask them to explain Bazant to you!

Your Dr. Bazant, the world-leading professors of Structural Engineering, can not be unaware of that. Then he published that report by knowledge that he was publishing a wrong report. He lied deliberately.

You make bare-assed claims, with no support by logic, math or material evidence.

Sorry, I just proved the evidence, so you should ask that a justice investigates the behavior of Zalewski and Bazant!

No, you just made claims. You brought no evidence.
Your logic is flawed.
Your math is missing.

 

[dafydd]

The succession of the hijacks is explained in slides 8 to 21 of the power point file. Mainly, the succession of the hijacks is impossible to be made by 4 different teams who can not contact each other to make such "successive" synchronisation.

Your definition of the word "explain'' is very different from the accepted meaning.

 

[Oystein]

Your post #33:

The succession of the hijacks is explained in slides 8 to 21 of the power point file. Mainly, the succession of the hijacks is impossible to be made by 4 different teams who can not contact each other to make such "successive" synchronisation.

Your post #98:

The first part of my power point file named "anomalies" is just suspicious questions about the official stroy. I do not use these arguments to prove my claims. These are not important for me, they can be true or wrong, it's meaningless to discuss about them. They only shows that the evidence supporting the official story are too weak.

These posts contradict each other.
Can you please make up your mind: Is the first part of your presentation unimportant and not used to prove your claims, or does it explain anything?

 

[Dave Rogers]

If you are a hijacker, what would you do? Immediately attack the pilots, cut their throats and put blood everywhere by risking some malfunction in some instruments? Or at first ask them to leave their seat? Sure, ask them to leave their seat.

Personally, I would tell them to take their hands away from the controls, and make it clear that I would cut the throat of the young and pretty flight stewardess that I was holding hostage for the purpose. I would then tell them to get out of their seats, again without touching the controls. Then, I might or might not get my three friends to kill them, depending on what was the least trouble.

It's not exactly pleasant to imagine that, but it's far from difficult.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think we saw early on in the piece that Mehmet hasn't got a very good grasp of the reality of the situation, either in the cockpit of a plane, in air-traffic control, or politically. He has his fixed agenda, and neither facts nor argument are going to sway him from that. So obviously he isn't an unbiased researcher, nor even a real researcher at all. He's an opportunistic and simplistic propagandist for an unhealthy and misguided mindset. Every piece of his puzzle is hammered into the wrong place to form only the picture he wants to see. And that's rather sad, really. What a waste of a brain...

This whole thing is a classic case of Mackey's Irreducible Delusion. It's been clear since page 1 that Mehmet hates Jews, believes that Jews are responsible for all evil acts, and believes that everyone who disagrees with him on that score does so because that person is Jewish. Since he believes Jews are responsible for all evil acts, he has constructed a post facto rationalisation by which he allows himself to believe they carried out the 9/11 attacks. At this point, having identified the Irreducible Delusion, we should adjust our aims accordingly; the only action needed now is to publicise the fact that he is a racist bigot, and that this prejudice is the only reason why he believes 9/11 was carried out by Jews. As is usually the case with his idealogical cousins the neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers, there is very little point engaging with him.

Dave