What's your theory about 9/11?

[beachnut]

I think it's damaging to the process of inquiry to offer a counter explanation. A counter explanation isn't required -- and when busted, subconsciously provides a straw-man like leap that concludes all your arguments are false.

The only thing required, is to demonstrate that ANY claimed hypothesis is false to show obstruction of justice. That's it.

911 truth claims are all false, and they are only making claims to make money. The truth movement is not real, it is a fake movement made up to make money by the few. This is standard capitalism, fake claims, an audience too lazy to think for themselves, buying DVDs, Books and making donations to Gage. Gage has made over 1,000,000 bucks, and he offers nothing but ideas - a religion of nuts who think they are changing the world by signing Gage's petition of woo. The best money maker, sells nothing tangible. I doubt DRG has sold as many books as Gage has sold fake claims to the not about to think for themselves gullible people who like conspiracy theories over reality.

Gage is selling lies. You think you can show obstruction of justice? 19 terrorists did 911. What was obstructed?

Unlikely but not impossible:

?

Missing ALL "black boxes".

Unlikely? Please solve E=mgh and tell me why there was not enough energy to crush the black boxes, made by man.
All missing? What about 77? Found. What about 93? Found. Easier to find 77, the Pentagon is not 110 stories high, and E=mgh is not a big factor. 93, an impact with the ground, not two of the tallest office building in the world. E=mgh, why does 911 truth never use physics to do more than mislead those who refuse to think for themselves.

3 buildings, nearly identical collapse appearance.

Three collapse, entirely different. The interior of WTC 7 collapsed first. Each tower collapsed began differently.

Contradictory statements from witnesses (fireman claimed explosions in basement)

Explosions? Have you listed them and then asked what caused the loud noises? Any witness to explosives would be dead. Did they hear explosives?

Fast decision o' who dunnit.

? 19 terrorists

Box cutters?

and small knives. I have not clue why people don't know the quickest way to kill, to make someone useless is cutting their throat. I think UBL and company figured out the responsible to the pilot is to protect the passengers. The pilots had to be killed to make the mission successful. Pilots are leaders for their task, the number one person. If you leave a pilot alive, he can render the aircraft un-flyable in seconds. Small knives or box cutters are the only way to kill pilots before 911, besides using the crash axe other objects on board. You don't want to fight someone when you have to do what the terrorists needed to do, you need to eliminate them. The terrorists cut and killed people, this is a fact told with last words on phone calls. Unlikely, the words of someone who failed to do any research, and they are proud of it.

How long can you function with your throat cut. Have you tried to imagine how the pilots felt as they died, strapped in with shoulder harnesses and seat belts with their backs to those murderers. No, you make up lies about 911 and like them, not thinking of others, you know you are right because you studied 911, flying, physics, structural engineering, math, ATC procedures, killing methods, jet fuel, gravity, black boxes, FDR, and more so you knew what is, and what is not truth. You did extensive research before making up your mind, you are a skeptic. sure

 

[FrankHT]

OK, since you are not too quick to respond I will take care of it for you. According to the 9/11 Commission, which seems to be what you are using as the source of your theory the testimony of these officers was incorrect. From the Commission Report:

More than the actual events, inaccurate government accounts of those events made it appear that the military was notified in time to respond to two of the hijackings, raising questions about the adequacy of the response. Those accounts had the effect of deflecting questions about the military's capacity to obtain timely and accurate information from its own sources. In addition, they overstated the FAA's ability to provide the military with timely and useful information that morning.

In public testimony before this Commission in May 2003, NORAD officials stated that at 9:16, NEADS received hijack notification of United 93 from the FAA.175This statement was incorrect. There was no hijack to report at 9:16. United 93 was proceeding normally at that time.

In this same public testimony, NORAD officials stated that at 9:24, NEADS received notification of the hijacking of American 77.176 This statement was also incorrect. The notice NEADS received at 9:24 was that American 11 had not hit the World Trade Center and was heading for Washington, D.C.177

In their testimony and in other public accounts, NORAD officials also stated that the Langley fighters were scrambled to respond to the notifications about American 77,178 United 93, or both. These statements were incorrect as well. The fighters were scrambled because of the report that American 11 was heading south, as is clear not just from taped conversations at NEADS but also from taped conversations at FAA centers; contemporaneous logs compiled at NEADS, Continental Region headquarters, and NORAD; and other records. Yet this response to a phantom aircraft was not recounted in a single public timeline or statement issued by the FAA or Department of Defense. The inaccurate accounts created the impression that the Langley scramble was a logical response to an actual hijacked aircraft.

In fact, not only was the scramble prompted by the mistaken information about American 11, but NEADS never received notice that American 77 was hijacked. It was notified at 9:34 that American 77 was lost. Then, minutes later, NEADS was told that an unknown plane was 6 miles southwest of the White House. Only then did the already scrambled airplanes start moving directly toward Washington, D.C.

Thus the military did not have 14 minutes to respond to American 77, as testimony to the Commission in May 2003 suggested. It had at most one or two minutes to react to the unidentified plane approaching Washington, and the fighters were in the wrong place to be able to help. They had been responding to a report about an aircraft that did not exist.

Nor did the military have 47 minutes to respond to United 93, as would be implied by the account that it received notice of the flight's hijacking at 9:16. By the time the military learned about the flight, it had crashed.

A suspect is interviewed by police. During the course of the interview he reveals (says something inadvertently) that only the perpetrator could know. The police 'Cherry pick' his interview and then confront him. He tries to back peddle,"I was incorrect,mistaken,wrong"," But to no avail. The damage is done. What was said was said. Thus is the case here,no difference.
Gen. Arnold and Col. Marr gave first hand,first person,eye witness testimony of what they knew and when they knew it. No mistake. You're going to have to call them liars,but then be sure to tell me what motivated them to lie (how did they benefit?).
The NORAD tapes can't tell us what Gen Arnold & Col Marr knew and when they knew it. Those calls were between FAA headquarters and NEADS operational floor. Gen Arnold admits he was in regular contact with NORAD headquarters and his staff who said were in an aircraft "orbiting" Washington DC (E4-B) and with Col. Marr. Gen. Arnold mentions the use of AWACs & other aircraft with tracking capability. Does anyone have any proof NORAD WAS NOT tracking the aircraft themselves? Gen Arnold's & Col. Marr's testimony suggests that they were.

 

[beachnut]

...Gen. Arnold and Col. Marr gave first hand,first person,eye witness testimony of what they knew and when they knew it. ...

What did they know? Making mistakes about times is not unusual. Since 911 was an event and not an opinion, the time mistakes can be seen clearly, you can't use mistakes as support for you crazy claims.

... No mistake. You're going to have to call them liars,but then be sure to tell me what motivated them to lie (how did they benefit?). ...

They did not lie, they made mistakes. But go ahead, call them liars, all of 911 truth is comprised of liars.

...The NORAD tapes can't tell us what Gen Arnold & Col Marr knew and when they knew it....

The tapes are evidence, the stuff from the Generals, hearsay. But go ahead ignore facts and evidence, make up some more nonsense.

... Those calls were between FAA headquarters and NEADS operational floor. ...

Thus prove the confusion and nail down the time line.

...Gen Arnold admits he was in regular contact with NORAD headquarters and ...

So?

...his staff who said were in an aircraft "orbiting" Washington DC (E4-B) and with Col. Marr. ...

Who exactly was in the E4? List them.

...Gen. Arnold mentions the use of AWACS & other aircraft with tracking capability. ...

Not before all the terrorists were dead. You failed to use time. Big error.

... Does anyone have any proof NORAD WAS NOT tracking the aircraft themselves? ...

They were not. NORAD was looking outside the USA. They did not expect Russians to takeoff form airports in the USA. You have no idea what the founding fathers principles are, and why the skies over the USA were not military free fire zones. But go ahead, bring on more nonsense from 911 truth and Google U.

...Gen Arnold's & Col. Marr's testimony suggests that they were. ...

No, their testimony shows there was no tracking by NORAD planes.



NORAD was looking outside the USA. You are about 11 years behind, and falling deeper into fantasy.

 

[FrankHT]

Not before all the terrorists were dead. You failed to use time. Big error.

This is the claim I want some proof of. Have you got any evidence that the AWACs etc were NOT used until AFTER all the planes had crashed? I didn't make it up. They're only in the conversation because Gen. Arnold mentioned them.
As for NORAD looking out rather than in. Yes,we know the old 'doughnut' defense. For 2 days I've been hounded to answer the question (not by you),but it's irrelevant.

 

[Fonebone]

Truman, do yourself a favor. Take another look at the WTC7 collapse, in slow motion, from the point where the penthouse collapses (a few seconds before the exterior), then forward. Envision the interior collapsing under the penthouse, pulling on the exterior. You may also note the kink in one wall as this happens. Then envision the exterior being yanked down once the interior has exerted enough pull to break the columns holding up the exterior. Think also of the way the exterior is put together - strong enough to hold a box shape. Therefore, when it goes, it goes all together at once.

Note there are no explosive noises or flashes once the building goes. It just, well, collapses.

Edit to add: by the way, I do have a degree in Physics, and a Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering, and the collapse makes sense to me. There are others here more experienced and educated in building construction who also think the collapse makes sense as a result of the fires.

Excellent suggestion !
But first Truman, do yourself a favor and carefully examine how an elevator
"penthouse" behaves during a controlled demolition for a benchmark.

 

[Oystein]

...the AWACs etc were NOT used until AFTER all the planes had crashed...

Which AWACSs?

 

[LSSBB]

Excellent suggestion !
But first Truman, do yourself a favor and carefully examine how an elevator
"penthouse" behaves during a controlled demolition for a benchmark.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/36381506cf0bf32a9d.gif[/qimg]

Not quite the same sequence as WTC7 though, eh? How long after the penthouse of WTC7 collapsed did the exterior collapse?

 

[beachnut]

This is the claim I want some proof of. Have you got any evidence that the AWACs etc were NOT used until AFTER all the planes had crashed? I didn't make it up. They're only in the conversation because Gen. Arnold mentioned them.
As for NORAD looking out rather than in. Yes,we know the old 'doughnut' defense. For 2 days I've been hounded to answer the question (not by you),but it's irrelevant.

You do make it up because you don't read for understanding, you read to add nonsense to your fantasy.

Where is Tinker AFB? Where is flight 93, 11, 175, and 77? Good luck. I worked at Tinker too, and I have flown and used AWACS, in combat and peace time. Have you?

AWACS were used in military airspace before 911, they were not used to track Airliners. It is not something you seem to understand.

When did Gen Arnold mention them, what day. What was he talking about. The part about using AWACS is what happened later in the day, after flight 93 crashed. You like to cherry-pick testimony and fail to read for comprehension.

Read your stuff again, this time use logic and knowledge.

 

[Redwood]

9/11 truth is my religion, my faith, my lifestyle. My belief does NOT require facts, you government shill!

No-plane truth 2012

We should sue all debunkers for promoting the myth that airplanes impacted the WTC on 9/11. It is part of a huge a PsyOp against genuine truth seekers! Maybe court proceedings will set an end to debunkers' reign.

In fact, I have all the printed forms laying in front of me, ready to bring this case to court. Debunkers need to be held accountable, then we can finally expose the no-plane/nanothermite truth, the truth needs to come out!

I can send you the forms, just give me your e-mail adress or something. You will just have to sign, solidarity in truth.

No more lies from debunkers.

This is really some kind of performance art, isn't it? You're really Sacha Baron Cohen, aren't you?

 

[FrankHT]

Since you made the claim, how about you provide the evidence?

There's only 2 things about the SOF position needed for my theory:
1.That he'd be in communication with both Civilian ATC (from who he'd learn of 77 & tell the pilots). And
2.That he'd be reviewing & relaying mission orders to ensure they are accurate (inaccurate mission orders-No location/distance to target [scramble to nowhere] resulted in the SOP scramble.
This seems to confirm that both these are true:"it is the SOF’s responsibility to monitor the jets—TO WORK WITH LOCAL CONTROLLERS to ensure priority handling and to make sure that the pilots are receiving lawful launch orders. The SOF stays in close communication with NEADS to get any and all information about the mission to pass on to his pilots, and assesses weather, airfield status, and spare alert aircraft status in case of an abort by one of the primary fighters."
So,yes,I'm claiming Borgstrum was intentionally put up to prevent him from doing his job as SOF and result was an SOP scramble and a guarantee the the pilots wouldn't find out about 77,think 2 hijacked jet were heading to Washington DC from opposite directions at the same time & head straight to Washington DC itself where it could be defended from ALL directions.

 

[Redwood]

I'm not trying to attract negative attention... I'm utterly new here and uneducated. I realize it's going to be nearly impossible to a conclusive answer... but I'm comfortable putting ALL the other issues, Shanksville, Pentagon, WTC 1&2 to the side. I highly doubt ANYONE who'd discuss on the internet, has ANY idea what happened IF it's not as presented to the public.

Please, if any physicists or structural engineers can view the behavior of such a building collapse and find it consistent with their knowledge of the behavior of matter and gravity it'd spare me a great deal of time contemplating this.

Does anyone know the opinion's [sic]of Dawkins, Tyson, Krauss or other notable physicists?

I assume you mean Richard Dawkins, N.D. Tyson, and L.M. Krauss. Richard Dawkins is a biologist, not a physicist. Tyson is an astrophysicist. Krauss is a theoretical physicist. Any opinions they may have as to 9/11 are of no more value than mine, a chemist.

IANAL, but I seriously doubt that any could pass a Daubert test as an expert witness on structural engineering, unless they've been moonlighting. (I hope that none, including me, could pass a Daubert!)

Why don't you ask the opinion of a qualified structural engineer, such as Les Robertson, the engineer of record for the Twin Towers, and more recently, lead engineer for the World Financial Center of Shanghai? Or, from academia, Professor Zdenek Bazant?

 

[beachnut]

There's only 2 things about the SOF position needed for my theory:
1.That he'd be in communication with both Civilian ATC (from who he'd learn of 77 & tell the pilots). And
2.That he'd be reviewing & relaying mission orders to ensure they are accurate (inaccurate mission orders-No location/distance to target [scramble to nowhere] resulted in the SOP scramble.
This seems to confirm that both these are true:"it is the SOF’s responsibility to monitor the jets—TO WORK WITH LOCAL CONTROLLERS to ensure priority handling and to make sure that the pilots are receiving lawful launch orders. The SOF stays in close communication with NEADS to get any and all information about the mission to pass on to his pilots, and assesses weather, airfield status, and spare alert aircraft status in case of an abort by one of the primary fighters."
So,yes,I'm claiming Borgstrum was intentionally put up to prevent him from doing his job as SOF and result was an SOP scramble and a guarantee the the pilots wouldn't find out about 77,think 2 hijacked jet were heading to Washington DC from opposite directions at the same time & head straight to Washington DC itself where it could be defended from ALL directions.

Weather on 911, perfect, no SOF needed to watch the weather.

NEADS does not control the airspace over DC. No need to talk to NEADS. The pilots do not talk to the SOF for targets, they will take off and be directed by controllers. How many years experience do you have as a Air Force officer?

The SOF was put up to fly a jet because he had a aircraft. There are many pilots and other people who can do the SOF duties when the SOF is launched. Proof, he talked to his commander, he said fly. He called because he did not want to leave his SOF position, he must not be experienced.

We need aircraft in the air, not supervisors. We needed the pointy end of the stick not some supervisors on the ground. You failed to make a point, you sound like some ground pounder who thinks you need a SOF. You are wrong.

This is the dumbest theory I have heard; in 28 years of flying with the USAF, you have won the dumbest theory. I have been SOF, and I have used SOF advice.

The SOF does not pick out targets, he is not allowed to talk on ATC frequency. How do you make up silly fantasy like this? How many times have you pulled SOF. OOPS, I used the word "pulled". You are funny.

and to make sure that the pilots are receiving lawful launch orders

What a load of junk. How many sorties have you flown in the USAF?

 

[LSSBB]

This is really some kind of performance art, isn't it? You're really Sacha Baron Cohen, aren't you?

Or Onion staffers

 

[Mark F]

A suspect is interviewed by police. During the course of the interview he reveals (says something inadvertently) that only the perpetrator could know. The police 'Cherry pick' his interview and then confront him. He tries to back peddle,"I was incorrect,mistaken,wrong"," But to no avail. The damage is done. What was said was said. Thus is the case here,no difference.

What damage? Col. Marr and Gen. Arnold told two rather different accounts to the Commission and as it turned out there were major errors in both accounts. Some of this was probably deliberately misleading - trying to save face - much of it was probably honest mistakes. This is why eyewitness testimony (which you seem to rely on almost exclusively to make your case even when your witnesses contradict each other) is considered the least reliable form of evidene. It has to be corroborated with physical evidence and in this instance the physical evidence (audio recordings) indicated the timelines given by these men were not accurate.

[uote] Gen. Arnold and Col. Marr gave first hand,first person,eye witness testimony of what they knew and when they knew it. No mistake. You're going to have to call them liars,but then be sure to tell me what motivated them to lie (how did they benefit?).[/quote]

No one is calling them liars. They were mistaken in many details, particularly in the timeline. One can be mistaken and not be a liar. Again, memory is a very fragile thing. Add in the general confusion of the day and the passage of time between the event and the testimony and one would expect significant errors. For example, both Arnold and Marr claim they started tracking Flight 93 at 9:16 am but 93 had not even been hijacked at that point and NEADS would not be informed of 93's hijacking for another 51 minutes. Clearly there is no mention of 93 in any of the NEADS tapes until after it crashed so if they were tracking it earlier, why did no one mention it?

Also, while testimony that Langley fighters were scrambled at 9:24am was accurate, Col. Scott testified they were scrambled in response to Flight 77 and Gen. Arnold claimed it was for Flight 93 when in fact the tapes clearly show that at the time they were chasing a phantom Flight 11 which had already crashed but was reported as heading towards DC.

The Vanity Fair story on the 30 hours of NEADS tapes does a great job of covering the flaws, errors and contradictions in the witness testimony to the Commission. You might want to peruse it since your star witnesses can't even agree with each other, let alone support your fantasy.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

 

[FrankHT]

Clearly there is no mention of 93 in any of the NEADS tapes until after it crashed so if they were tracking it earlier, why did no one mention it?

Maybe because the information about Flight 93 (all the others too) wasn't coming from the FAA. I'm quite,sure NORAD's own system is far far superior to the FAA's and covers US airspace (interior included) far better than the FAA's. Just like I'm sure they have real time access to the FAA's system,know everything the FAA knows & more too. The fact that this isn't public knowledge or admitted to means nothing. That's simply par for the course,"will neither confirm nor deny". It's like Israel and nuclear weapons 'officially' they don't have any,but everyone knows they do (wink,wink,nod,nod).
So, tell me,if a Backfire bomber had slipped through NORAD's doughnut (under the radar) and entered US airspace,NORAD would have NO ability to track it? NORAD would have been at the mercy of the FAA? Do you honestly believe they never thought of that? Or maybe it's a word game. Maybe the military tracking system far better than the FAA's that covers the interior of the continent 'officially' belongs to some other alphabet agency and it's truthful but deceptive to say "NORAD" doesn't have such a system..Wink,wink,nod,nod.

 

[TrumanHW]

"Congratulations! Your first Stundie nom!"

Actually, I completely agree with you. I blundered in that remark... what I omitted, was that it had to be some [thing] that is massive importance. Such as, any corroborable explosives evidence, proof of premeditation, communication making complicit, communication [clearly] obstructing, live people that were claimed on the plane, faked video... that sort of thing.

I'm actually not suggesting those things are [claims]... I'm just describing examples of things that to me, would qualify as outrageous, potentially complicit, and sufficient to warrant a serious re-examination of the OT.

 

[TrumanHW]

You would do well to have a little humility and listen to those who are educated. Like the experts in many different fields who can easily explain the anomalies you find so mysterious.

It's all here in these forums, if you're willing to look for it.

I'm MOST interested in finding explanations that provide insight to the rate of collapse as well as the consistency. As observed in the video, the roof remains nearly parallel. This to me is astonishing... and worthy of explanation.

I'm adequately humble to seek counter-arguments. My humility is to qualitative information, and I'm under the impression that the attitude is sufficient.

 

[TrumanHW]

Truman, do yourself a favor. Take another look at the WTC7 collapse, in slow motion, from the point where the penthouse collapses (a few seconds before the exterior), then forward. Envision the interior collapsing under the penthouse, pulling on the exterior. You may also note the kink in one wall as this happens. Then envision the exterior being yanked down once the interior has exerted enough pull to break the columns holding up the exterior. Think also of the way the exterior is put together - strong enough to hold a box shape. Therefore, when it goes, it goes all together at once.

Note there are no explosive noises or flashes once the building goes. It just, well, collapses.

Edit to add: by the way, I do have a degree in Physics, and a Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering, and the collapse makes sense to me. There are others here more experienced and educated in building construction who also think the collapse makes sense as a result of the fires.

I'm loving you. Education is definitely preferred over ridicule...

What I'm now curious of, in reply, is why did the frames (which in viewing the construction, the walls appear as rigid) not fall inwards instead of collapsing downwards - if all the weight of the interior was already collapsed from the PH..?

 

[Spanx]

Hi TrumanHW

Interesting comment. Have you seen a video where you can see the point of collapse ?

If so where can I see it

 

[Travis]

I'm MOST interested in finding explanations that provide insight to the rate of collapse as well as the consistency. As observed in the video, the roof remains nearly parallel. This to me is astonishing... and worthy of explanation.

I'm adequately humble to seek counter-arguments. My humility is to qualitative information, and I'm under the impression that the attitude is sufficient.

The key here is that you find it astonishing. Only you. What I saw looked entirely like a gravity collapse to my mind.