The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

[Regnad Kcin]

Say, we're in for some nice weather this week. I'm so glad spring training has restarted, they need to televise more of the games. Boy, Dave is always having Jack Hanna on, what's up with that.


Hey, what about that OP?

Yes, the OP.

With humility (because, really, any jamoke could've composed it), it all by itself pretty much obviates not just this thread but turns the lights off on the whole 9/11 subforum.

PS: Mmm, baseball.

 

[Oystein]

Sources matter. Right?

On an anecdote of my personal experience? No. Not at all. I am THE most eminent source on all things related to MY experiences.

Do you want the 9/11 Commission's Report for the source or the Department of Transportation Inspector General Report, or all the shredded tapes which of course are no longer in existence(nytimes.com2004/05/06) for the actual timeline for the events of that day?
So we will have a true idea if the protocols would have made a difference.

You mentioned protocols that were to be followed in the event of a hijack.

Evidently, those protocols were not shredded, or else you wouldn't know them.

So please:

Please provide details of that protocol,and elucidate for us

• What time intervals do these protocols allow for a) time from noticing problem to alerting NORAD b) Time from alerting NORAD to fighter lift-off c) Time from fighter lift-off to intercept (fighter actually behind target).
• Tell us where in the USA there are actual fighters on alert that can be used for such intercepts, and discuss what that means with regard to the time until intercepting airliners anywhere within the Continental USA
• How often had the rotocal been put into action in the years before 9/11 to actually intercept civilian planes over the Continental USA?
• What was the mean, and the shortest, time interval was from first sign of a problem to issuing an alarm at NORAD to actual intercept (fighter follows target close behind) for these intercepts over the Continental USA?
• Then discuss the time intervals actually available on 9/11, location of alert fighters, actual event, and compare with protocols and experience before 9/11!

I think if you go through that, you will find that there was absolutely no chance at all to intercept, let alone shoot down, AA11 and UA 175 even assuming perfect information and actions by all concerned. As for AA77, you will find that, while it may have been physically possible to intercept that flight, it wasn't actually possible because the various agencies did not share whatever information arose perfectly and efficiently. There might have been a slim chance to intercept UA93 if it had not crashed before getting closer to the east coast.

If you have trouble doing that research, feel free to ask for assistance. But it could be a good exercise for you to try it on your own. [snipped Scholz story] Working with factual information, you will find that NORAD had its resources too thinly spread since the end of the Cold War and some cut-backs after 1991.

And don't ever come back with insinuations that supposedly unavailable evidence is evidence for anything. This line of evasion tells everyone here clearly and unambiguously: You are running away from a serios argument!
Please, don't dodge.
Please, don't weazle yourself out of this.
You brought up the topic of protocols. So it is your job to show what the protocols were, and if and how they were to be followed.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

This is not even good trolling. Good trolling leads the victims into futile discussion. This just invites derision, so consider yourself derided.

I'm not interested in trolling you guys, just taking you to the intellectual woodshed, which I've been successfully doing now for what, three, maybe four days?

You guys hate me because I am here reminding you that you can't support with any verifiable or credible evidence the nonsensical government conspiracy theory you buy into. Your only salvation is to have one of your government truther mods ban me, because I'm not planning on going away anytime soon.

 

[carlitos]

Delusions of grandeur much?

I'm not interested in trolling you guys, just taking you to the intellectual woodshed, which I've been successfully doing now for what, three, maybe four days?

You guys hate me because I am here reminding you that you can't support with any verifiable or credible evidence the nonsensical government conspiracy theory you buy into. Your only salvation is to have one of your government truther mods ban me, because I'm not planning on going away anytime soon.

I came here to discuss monetary policy, monetary concepts, and central banking with well-read people who have the ability to argue the non-conspiratorial viewpoint that runs counter to mine. I actually enjoy being challenged and made to think. So far I haven't found that in this thread.

Is there anybody else on this website who can intelligently carry an argument without being disingenuous or is this the best I am going to get? Because if this is the best, there are other boards I can participate on where the level of discussion is higher.

I don't mind explaining these concepts to people or sharing my views, but wasting my time combating trolls is old and it always ends the same way.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

 

[332nd]

I'm not interested in trolling you guys, just taking you to the intellectual woodshed, which I've been successfully doing now for what, three, maybe four days?

You guys hate me because I am here reminding you that you can't support with any verifiable or credible evidence the nonsensical government conspiracy theory you buy into. Your only salvation is to have one of your government truther mods ban me, because I'm not planning on going away anytime soon.

Still no proof of USG involvement.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Still no proof of USG involvement.

Still no proof of full Al-Qaeda responsibility or legitimacy.

 

[332nd]

Still no proof of full Al-Qaeda responsibility or legitimacy.

Already presented... Unlike your proof of USG involvement. Found anything yet?

 

[332nd]

Translation:

The check is in the mail! No, really! You'll get it soon! I promise...

No. The translation is "already been presented". You know this to which is why you're avoiding posting your own.

 

[332nd]

Maybe you have masochistic tendencies, and enjoy getting butchered on internet forums.

Or maybe you just painted yourself into a corner, and now must pray the mods ban you in order to save face. That's the usual twoofer song and dance.

I posted in one of the other threads that this reminds me of O'Reilly's " you can't explain how the moon got there argument".

He thought he'd dealt a crushing blow too.

 

[Oystein]

Still no proof of full Al-Qaeda responsibility or legitimacy.

The difference between

Al Quada is responsible​

and

Al Quada is fully responsible and legitimate​

is this:

Everybody else is not responsible​

Which can be subdivided into

The US government is not responsible
The Russian government is not responsible
The Chinese government is not responsible
The Saudi Arabian government is not responsible
The Yemenite government is not responsible
The Iraqi government is not responsible
The Israeli government is not responsible
The Canadian government is not responsible
The German government is not responsible
The Swiss government is not responsible
The Angolan government is not responsible
...
The NWO is not responsible
The Illuminati are not responsible
The Birch society is not responsible
The cast of the Beijing Opera is not responsible
...
Oystein is not responsible
SpringHallConvert is not responsible
SpringHallConvert's Jewish billionaire mother is not responsible
Chuck Norris is not responsible
...
etc.
​

Obviously, we can't prove any of these negatives.


Luckily, SpringHallConvert is not claiming anything. So there is no need to prove any negative.



(I have said this many times no, SpringHallConvert ignores it. Every instance of him not proving that his Jewish concealed billionaire mother was behind 9/11 is another defeat for him. Everyboy in the Colisseum jeers everytime, only the loser, SpringHallConvert, fails to notice)

 

[SpringHallConvert]

The difference between

Al Quada is responsible​

and

Al Quada is fully responsible and legitimate​

is this:

Everybody else is not responsible​

Which can be subdivided into

The US government is not responsible
The Russian government is not responsible
The Chinese government is not responsible
The Saudi Arabian government is not responsible
The Yemenite government is not responsible
The Iraqi government is not responsible
The Israeli government is not responsible
The Canadian government is not responsible
The German government is not responsible
The Swiss government is not responsible
The Angolan government is not responsible
...
The NWO is not responsible
The Illuminati are not responsible
The Birch society is not responsible
The cast of the Beijing Opera is not responsible
...
Oystein is not responsible
SpringHallConvert is not responsible
SpringHallConvert's Jewish billionaire mother is not responsible
Chuck Norris is not responsible
...
etc.
​

Obviously, we can't prove any of these negatives.


Luckily, SpringHallConvert is not claiming anything. So there is no need to prove any negative.



(I have said this many times no, SpringHallConvert ignores it. Every instance of him not proving that his Jewish concealed billionaire mother was behind 9/11 is another defeat for him. Everyboy in the Colisseum jeers everytime, only the loser, SpringHallConvert, fails to notice)

This is all wrong. You government truthers believe Al-Qaeda is an independent, grassroots terrorist organization that managed to pull off the 9/11 attacks without any State support or sponsorship. This is a positive belief, therefore, it is your responsibility to prove it. I'm not asking you to prove a negative, I'm asking you to prove a positive?

Why do you believe what you believe? I want to see some hard, credible, and verifiable evidence.

 

[Oystein]

This is all wrong. You government truthers believe Al-Qaeda is an independent, grassroots terrorist organization that managed to pull off the 9/11 attacks without any State support or sponsorship. This is a positive belief, therefore, it is your responsibility to prove it. I'm not asking you to prove a negative, I'm asking you to prove a positive?

Why do you believe what you believe? I want to see some hard, credible, and verifiable evidence.

First, prove that this is what we believe.
Secondly, explain how "without" denotes a positive. In my world, "without any State support or sponsorship" is equivalent to "all states provided no support or sponsorship", which clearly is a negative.

You probably believe that whoever pulled off 9/11 did so without your mother's support or sponsorship. Can you prove it? I doubt it.


ETA: What I did believe as of september 2010 can be found in my Roll-call thread, post #3. As you can see, I allowed im principle for doubts about the innocents of all government agencies and for the actual extent of the role of AQ leaders such as KSM. I haven't changed my position on these points very much since, basically because the situation with regard to evidence for government complicity is basically the same now as it was then: There is no evidence that any state agency was actively behind AQ when they planned and carried out 9/11. Thus lacking any prima facie case against the government, it is therefore, according to all reasonable protocols of evidence, unnecessary to disprove the government was complicit.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

First, prove that this is what we believe.
Secondly, explain how "without" denotes a positive. In my world, "without any State support or sponsorship" is equivalent to "all states provided no support or sponsorship", which clearly is a negative.

You probably believe that whoever pulled off 9/11 did so without your mother's support or sponsorship. Can you prove it? I doubt it.

Fine. Let's just keep this simple then.

Can you at the very least prove Al-Qaeda's legitimacy as a grassroots, autonomous, independent, legitimate terrorist operation? If you can do that, I might be more willing to believe the idea that they pulled off the attacks of 9/11 without the U.S. government's complicity.

The official conspiracy theory rests upon the idea - or better yet, theory - that Al-Qaeda had the capability to pull off the attacks all by themselves. This seems highly speculative to me.

 

[beachnut]

Fine. Let's just keep this simple then.

Can you at the very least prove Al-Qaeda's legitimacy as a grassroots, autonomous, independent, legitimate terrorist operation? If you can do that, I might be more willing to believe the idea that they pulled off the attacks of 9/11 without the U.S. government's complicity.

The official conspiracy theory rests upon the idea - or better yet, theory - that Al-Qaeda had the capability to pull off the attacks all by themselves. This seems highly speculative to me.

19 of them did it.

I admit, buying small knives is hard to do.
I admit, flying heavy jet aircraft is so hard to do, only my daughter can hit a target the size of a standard runway without training.
Buying airline tickets is real hard too, I doubt UBL's drones could do it.
The plot is too complex for 19 Islamic nuts, 1. take planes, 2. crash planes. I mean this is impossible for 19 nuts who kill themselves to do it.
Where did they find 19 nuts who would kill themselves?

I think you got us, so go ahead, blame someone, and make it stick. Roll out your evidence! Hurry, I can't stand it, as you position yourself as a Pulitzer Prize winning source; have you picked which news paper gets all your evidence?

 

[trustbutverify]

This is all wrong. You government truthers believe Al-Qaeda is an independent, grassroots terrorist organization that managed to pull off the 9/11 attacks without any State support or sponsorship. This is a positive belief, therefore, it is your responsibility to prove it. I'm not asking you to prove a negative, I'm asking you to prove a positive?

Why do you believe what you believe? I want to see some hard, credible, and verifiable evidence.

Where is the hard evidence that your billionaire Jewish mother did not play a role in the 9/11 attacks? I'm starting to suspect her.

 

[beachnut]

- that Al-Qaeda had the capability to pull off the attacks all by themselves. This seems highly speculative to me.

You think doing research is a "wild goose chase". What do you base your speculation on? Speculation? You mean you have no evidence?



If they had used their own aircraft, you might not sound so knowledge free, and willfully ignoring evidence. You can't refute 19 terrorists did 911, so you troll, three thread, with all your massive evidence.

Why can't 19 terrorists pull off 911 by themselves?

What planes did they use? How much did that cost?
What weapons did they use? How much do those cost?
Who is behind 911 in your theory?

 

[BStrong]

You think doing research is a "wild goose chase". What do you base your speculation on? Speculation? You mean you have no evidence?



If they had used their own aircraft, you might not sound so knowledge free, and willfully ignoring evidence. You can't refute 19 terrorists did 911, so you troll, three thread, with all your massive evidence.

Why can't 19 terrorists pull off 911 by themselves?

What planes did they use? How much did that cost?
What weapons did they use? How much do those cost?
Who is behind 911 in your theory?

Beach, he won't answer.

 

[DGM]

I'm not interested in trolling you guys, just taking you to the intellectual woodshed, which I've been successfully doing now for what, three, maybe four days?

You guys hate me because I am here reminding you that you can't support with any verifiable or credible evidence the nonsensical government conspiracy theory you buy into. Your only salvation is to have one of your government truther mods ban me, because I'm not planning on going away anytime soon.

So why didn't you accept the invitations to debate? It appears you are the one that's afraid of the "intellectual woodshed'.

 

[Tricky]

Cut out the personal attacks. Everybody.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[SpringHallConvert]

There is no evidence that any state agency was actively behind AQ when they planned and carried out 9/11. Thus lacking any prima facie case against the government, it is therefore, according to all reasonable protocols of evidence, unnecessary to disprove the government was complicit.[/B]

Hmmm, I wonder why there was no evidence. Is it because there really was no evidence, or is it because there was evidence, but our government made sure we didn't find out about it?

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, who would have been responsible for investigating any potential links between Al-Qaeda and a State agency of, for instance, the U.S. government? Would it not have been an agency of the U.S. government, like the FBI perhaps? If so, would it not be reasonable to assume that the FBI would conceal incriminating evidence against the U.S. government in the interest of national security? Imagine the civil unrest that would have occurred had it come out that the 9/11 attacks were organized by senior members of the U.S. government and military.

Contemplating such a scenario is both inconvenient and uncomfortable for the government truth squad, but it truly must be done by all interested and concerned citizens of the U.S.