How 9/11 was done

[9/11-investigator]

You're trying to modify the conclusions drawn from a primary source - "Maria" - by quoting secondary sources that have drawn their own erroneous extrapolated conclusions from the same primary source. This includes the BOLO report, which came the same day, before anyone had had time to interpret the evidence carefully, and while every shadow looked like a terrorist.

Dave wants to reject statements from Fox and the New York Times and the FBI just to make sure that his unsupportable claims do not fall flat on their face.

How convincing do you think this will be for a non-partisan passer-by?

My opponents understand very well that if they are not able to explain away the 'dancing Israelis' their debunking efforts take a torpedo amidships.

So what do we have: several people warned the FBI of strange behaviour of these 'movers'. The FBI issued this message to their people on the street:

White, 2000 Chevrolet van with 'Urban Moving Systems' sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial impact and subsequent explosion. FBI Newark Field Office requests that, if the van is located, hold for prints and detain individuals.

There can be only one explanation: these Israelis were expecting the impact. And together with the fact that FBI dogs reacted positively on traces of explosives in the van they drove, that's enough to know that they were the ones that planted the explosives in the WTC that brought down the towers.

Period.

 

[twinstead]

911 investigator although I find it commendable that you FINALLY actually answered a point instead of vomiting up YouTube videos and links, there are at least a DOZEN other points that put your whole scenario very much in doubt that you have so far totally ignored. Will you be addressing these?

 

[T.A.M.]

Has there been any production of physical evidence to back the OP theory yet? I am curious, as we are now 13 pages in, on moderated status, so evidence time would be around...oh...8 pages ago?

TAM

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave wants to reject statements from Fox and the New York Times and the FBI just to make sure that his unsupportable claims do not fall flat on their face.

Firstly, I'm not the one making a claim, you are.

Secondly, I've given clear reasoning behind why I reject these statements; they are clearly all derived from a single source, and that source does not say what you or they claim it says. In other words, I'm not saying I think they're wrong, I'm demonstrating that they're wrong, and explaining exactly how they're wrong. In response, what you're doing is repeating your claim that anything printed in the newspapers or announced by the FBI must be true, even if it can be demonstrated to be false. Yours is not the logically supported position here.

How convincing do you think this will be for a non-partisan passer-by?

Why should I care? We're trying to determine what actually happened here, not come up with the most plausible lie. At least, that's what I'm doing.

So what do we have: several people warned the FBI of strange behaviour of these 'movers'.

Several? We know of one.

The FBI issued this message to their people on the street:

White, 2000 Chevrolet van with 'Urban Moving Systems' sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial impact and subsequent explosion. FBI Newark Field Office requests that, if the van is located, hold for prints and detain individuals.

As you can see, if you read it without trying to find a suitable misinterpretation to bolster your fantasy, this actually makes two different statements:
(1) The van was seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact. It is not debated that the van was in Liberty State Park prior to the first impact, nor is there anything suspicious about the fact it was there.
(2) Three individuals were seen celebrating after the initial impact and subsequent explosion; no mention of how long after the first impact. Again, this is not disputed.
Your personal spin is that the people in the van were expecting the impact, but there is nothing in the FBI report to substantiate it; you're deliberately conflating two different statements.

There can be only one explanation: these Israelis were expecting the impact. And together with the fact that FBI dogs reacted positively on traces of explosives in the van they drove, that's enough to know that they were the ones that planted the explosives in the WTC that brought down the towers.

There is irrefutable physical, documentary and testimonial evidence that rules out any possibility of the towers having been brought down by explosives. Any reaction by FBI dogs, even if it was to traces of explosives, cannot therefore have had any connection to the 9/11 attacks.

"Period".

Note also that the FBI released these individuals after having determined that they were unconnected to the attacks. If there was evidence that they were involved, why did the FBI release them? If it was due to the FBI also being complicit in the attacks, why did the FBI apprehend them in the first place? Please don't try to suggest they were implicated but were released due to diplomatic pressure by Israel; that would amount to an admission by Israel, which would amount to a declaration of war on the USA.

Your claim rests on the assertion that the FBI correctly identified these five as being involved in the attacks within a few days, but then formed the erroneous impression after prolonged interrogation and investigation that they were innocent. This is set against the suggestion that the FBI suspected them of being involved in the initial panic, but determined after prolonged interrogation and investigation that they were uninvolved. Which of these looks more plausible?

Dave

 

[9/11-investigator]

Has there been any production of physical evidence to back the OP theory yet? I am curious, as we are now 13 pages in, on moderated status, so evidence time would be around...oh...8 pages ago?

TAM

For all my esteemed opponents in this thread who keep on demanding 'evidence' and 'proof' all the time, read my post nr 489 on this issue.

I do not claim to have any evidence whatsoever. But that does not stop me from thinking aloud and discussing with 'peers' about what happened on 9/11. In fact it is the raison d'etre of forums like this to do that.

My point is I cannot accept the OCT. WTC was controlled demolition, 99 was shot down, etc., etc.

So the Arabs are out.

Who did it then?

The major lead into an alternative suspect-cluster is the story of the 'dancing Israelis'. The arguments I hear here to minimize the significance of this story are weak or rather null and void. Which gives me confidence I am on a hot trail.

A second major lead into this angle is the political landscape: PNAC ('seizing on the unipolar moment'), Clean Brake and dwindling oil supplies in an ever expanding global economy. There was a huge geostrategic motive to find an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan (access to Caspian oil fields).

If you accept the notion of an American and/or Israeli inside job then you almost certainly have to fall back on a remote control scenario. I cannot remember examples of Mossad or CIA employees sacrificing themselves for their fatherland in a peace situation, voluntarily.

Did I prove that this was the case? No. I was able to collect material that hints at the possibility of such a technology but not more. Did my opponents prove that remote control was not used? No. But that is almost impossible to prove.

So, stalemate on this front.

There is still another remote D) possibility, that plane swaps occurred during 9/11. There is a theory on the web, supported by Bollyn, that it was a tanker plane that hit the WTC with a FTS (flight termination system) mounted on it. I still have to look into that possibility. Keep you posted.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Dear Dr. Adequate,

There has never been a moment since the beginning of my presence here on this forum that I expected that any one of my esteemed opponents would buckle or would 'comply' as president Bush likes to put it.

The only reason is to put 'my' story to the test and maybe to harvest some new information I can incorporate in my blog.

Anything else to wish for? Yes, ending a thread like the 'dancing Israelis' within this larger 'How 9/11 was done' thread the way it is ending now. If I post 467 and all I harvest is answers from 1337m4n ('maybe they cheered for something else') or your answer ('yes, but the Arabs in the Arabian street cheered too', as a response on an observation of mine that the Israelis cheered before anybody, including them, could have a clue about what was happening) then ...

... then you have slipped into your own private fantasy world where we reality-based folk cannot follow you.

That is not, in fact, "all" that you have "harvested".

I should congratulate you with the achieved results, I should open one of my favourite Rioja's and lean backwards and listen to this piece of George Friedrich Haendel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftGbfbtWbBQ

Quite so.

I have documentary, eyewitness and forensic medical evidence that the hijackers had terrorist associations, made martyrdom tapes, bought knives, bought tickets, checked in, boarded the planes, took them over armed with knives and boxcutters, and were on the planes when they crashed. Oh, and al Qaeda claimed responsibility.

You have no evidence that the "hijackers" were successfully impersonated by Mossad agents for a couple of years, no evidence of them "slipping out the side", no evidence of complicity by airport staff, no evidence of nerve gas being smuggled onto the planes, no evidence that the planes had been fitted with remote control devices, no evidence that anyone has even designed such a device for such planes, no evidence that such a device was ever fitted to the planes, no explanation of how it could be fitted without anyone finding out, no evidence that real-time voice morphing such as could fool a parent or lover existed in 2001, no explanation as to how Mossad could have used this gimmick to impersonate people whose presence on the planes they could not have predicted ... and you require that all the evidence we do have is a fake; a proposition which is itself unsupported by any evidence. And I haven't even mentioned your fantasy about blowing up the towers ...

However, you do have this strange rumor about "dancing Jews", with no explanation as to how even the Dreaded Hebrew Foxtrot allows Jews to control planes, or destroy skyscrapers, nor any evidence that they were in any way complicit in the crime.

So, yes, now might be an excellent time for you to do something not completely pointless. Listening to Handel sounds like quite a good idea.

Oh, and you might answer my question about which of us has the stronger case right now. As if you'd do that.

 

[dtugg]

So the Arabs are out.

Please explain why the Arabs, including the mastermind, who is now under trial at Gitmo (and likely to be found guilty and executed), have confessed to the whole thing numerous times. Do they like being patsies for the Mossad/CIA, their sword enemies?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Look what I found here:

http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2006/07/30/top_story.html

Just as an automated landing system is not a remote control system; just as near realtime voice-morphing is not realtime voice morphing; so also Malta in 2006 is not America in 2001.

No they did not, there was no Al Qaeda.

Leaving aside dumb Truthist semantics, the people whom the author of that article means by al Qaeda did and do exist.

They were eavesdropping on future 9/11 passengers.

The stuff that you make up as you go along isn't actually evidence.

Why does a report that they were eavesdropping on al Qaeda lead you to conclude that they were "eavesdropping on future 9/11 passengers" ... apart from that you really really want this to be true?

How did they identify these "future 9/11 passengers"? Do they also have secret technology that lets them spy on the future?

 

[twinstead]

.
I have documentary, eyewitness and forensic medical evidence that the hijackers had terrorist associations, made martyrdom tapes, bought knives, bought tickets, checked in, boarded the planes, took them over armed with knives and boxcutters, and were on the planes when they crashed. Oh, and al Qaeda claimed responsibility.

911 investigator. This is one of those posts I was talking about that you ignore. Who indeed has the better evidence?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

For all my esteemed opponents in this thread who keep on demanding 'evidence' and 'proof' all the time, read my post nr 489 on this issue.

I do not claim to have any evidence whatsoever. But that does not stop me from thinking aloud and discussing with 'peers' about what happened on 9/11. In fact it is the raison d'etre of forums like this to do that.

My point is I cannot accept the OCT. WTC was controlled demolition, 99 was shot down, etc., etc.

So the Arabs are out.

Who did it then?

The major lead into an alternative suspect-cluster is the story of the 'dancing Israelis'. The arguments I hear here to minimize the significance of this story are weak or rather null and void. Which gives me confidence I am on a hot trail.

A second major lead into this angle is the political landscape: PNAC ('seizing on the unipolar moment'), Clean Brake and dwindling oil supplies in an ever expanding global economy. There was a huge geostrategic motive to find an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan (access to Caspian oil fields).

If you accept the notion of an American and/or Israeli inside job then you almost certainly have to fall back on a remote control scenario. I cannot remember examples of Mossad or CIA employees sacrificing themselves for their fatherland in a peace situation, voluntarily.

Did I prove that this was the case? No. I was able to collect material that hints at the possibility of such a technology but not more. Did my opponents prove that remote control was not used? No. But that is almost impossible to prove.

So, stalemate on this front.

There is still another remote D) possibility, that plane swaps occurred during 9/11. There is a theory on the web, supported by Bollyn, that it was a tanker plane that hit the WTC with a FTS (flight termination system) mounted on it. I still have to look into that possibility. Keep you posted.

Well since you're in the realm of not using any facts or evidence to make your conclusions, why stop at humans? Why not question if aliens were involved, or how about Godzilla, etc?

I mean once you dismiss facts and evidence, sky s the limit and you just make up anything you want. After all, that's what the Jew-hating Bollyn does. But are you surprised that you and anti-semetics like Bollyn are not taken seriously?

 

[Trojan]

I have made life easier for myself by dropping the constraint of having the demolition preparation job done in a weekend.

No, you've just exchanged one insane theory for another.

If 911research is right, then demolition can be prepared from the elevator and hence there is no need for a rush. The weekend scenario was based on the notion that the power was switched off, so no regular workers doing overtime, so the Israelis could work undisturbed.

First off, the buildings are continously occupied by port authority personnel, not to mention international firms doing business around the globe.

Second, have you bothered to research ANY controlled demolitions actually carried out by professionals?

ANY?

If you had done so, you would know that controlled demolitions cannot be accomlished by planting explosives in elevator shafts! Do you know why? (Hint, try structural integrity)

And once again, you have a theory with no supporting facts and cannot demonstrate that the theory is even plausible. You have done no investigation outside conspiracy circles, and refuse to apply logic to any theory or conclusions.

I thought you were withdrawing until you had completed more investigations.

Try looking at CD company web sites, they may help.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Please explain why the Arabs, including the mastermind, who is now under trial at Gitmo (and likely to be found guilty and executed), have confessed to the whole thing numerous times. Do they like being patsies for the Mossad/CIA, their sword enemies?

No, Americans possess a very efficient way of truth-finding called waterboarding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed

There have been allegations by Human Rights Watch and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed himself that he was tortured while in custody. On February 4, 2008 it was revealed that he was subjected to the controversial technique of "simulated drowning," also called "waterboarding."

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_bbc_news_080205_cia_admits_waterboar.htm

The CIA has for the first time publicly admitted using the controversial method of "waterboarding" on terror suspects.
...
He said the technique had been used on high-profile al-Qaeda detainees including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

http://www.counterpunch.org/worthington02072008.html

The article proceeded with recollections of the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who apparently "won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess"

Now, that is efficiency! Chapeau! No unnecessary time wasting, come to the point in 2 minutes.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/49300/
New Khalid Shaikh Mohammed stunner: "My great-grandpa sank the Maine!"

It is a pity that these methods have been abandoned in Holland 300 years ago.

 

[Dr Adequate]

No, Americans possess a very efficient way of truth-finding called waterboarding:

And is that how al Qaeda extracted the martyrdom tapes from the hijackers, or how al Jazeera extracts videos from al Qaeda?

 

[dtugg]

No, Americans possess a very efficient way of truth-finding called waterboarding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed

There have been allegations by Human Rights Watch and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed himself that he was tortured while in custody. On February 4, 2008 it was revealed that he was subjected to the controversial technique of "simulated drowning," also called "waterboarding."

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_bbc_news_080205_cia_admits_waterboar.htm

The CIA has for the first time publicly admitted using the controversial method of "waterboarding" on terror suspects.
...
He said the technique had been used on high-profile al-Qaeda detainees including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

http://www.counterpunch.org/worthington02072008.html

The article proceeded with recollections of the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who apparently "won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess"

Now, that is efficiency! Chapeau! No unnecessary time wasting, come to the point in 2 minutes.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/49300/
New Khalid Shaikh Mohammed stunner: "My great-grandpa sank the Maine!"

It is a pity that these methods have been abandoned in Holland 300 years ago.

Fine, throw the confession that he gave after his capture...

You do know, however, that he also confessed before he was captured to Al Jazeera journalist Yosri Fouda (he wrote a book about it), right? How do you explain that?

Then, of course you have Osama confessing the whole thing multiple times. But I guess he is a Mossad agent.

 

[9/11-investigator]

no evidence that real-time voice morphing such as could fool a parent or lover existed in 2001

If one is able to do a splendid near real-time voice morphing job in 1999, than it is easy to infer that 2.5 years later this was possible real time given the enormous progress made in computing power in these years.

But here is the proof anyway:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.32.4102

Real-time voice morphing anno 2000.

The plot thickens.

 

[dtugg]

If one is able to do a splendid near real-time voice morphing job in 1999, than it is easy to infer that 2.5 years later this was possible real time given the enormous progress made in computing power in these years.

But here is the proof anyway:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.32.4102

Real-time voice morphing anno 2000.

The plot thickens.

The father of voice morphing technology says it is impossible to do it in real time in such a manner to fool one's family members. One of the victims even told her sister the combination to her safe. But I guess it is more likely that the Mossad miraculously figured it out than that it was really her talking.

 

[Disbelief]

If one is able to do a splendid near real-time voice morphing job in 1999, than it is easy to infer that 2.5 years later this was possible real time given the enormous progress made in computing power in these years.

But here is the proof anyway:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.32.4102

Real-time voice morphing anno 2000.

The plot thickens.

How did they get their targets to say exactly what they wanted to say? Did you read the description?

[published in the Proceedings of the ICMC2000] In this paper we present a real-time system for morphing two voices in the context of a karaoke application. As the user sings a pre-established song, his pitch, timbre, vibrato and articulation can be modified to resemble those of a pre-recorded and pre-analyzed recording of the same melody sang by another person. The underlying analysis/synthesis technique is based on SMS, to which many changes have been done to better adapt it to the singing voice and the real-time constrains of the system. Also a recognition and alignment module has been added for the needed synchronization of the user’s voice with the target’s voice before the morph is done. There is room for improvements in every single module of the system, but the techniques presented have proved to be valid and capable of musically useful results. 1.

Bolding mine.

 

[Sunstealer]

For all my esteemed opponents in this thread who keep on demanding 'evidence' and 'proof' all the time, read my post nr 489 on this issue.

I do not claim to have any evidence whatsoever. But that does not stop me from thinking aloud and discussing with 'peers' about what happened on 9/11. In fact it is the raison d'etre of forums like this to do that.

My point is I cannot accept the OCT. WTC was controlled demolition, 99 was shot down, etc., etc.

Then there is absolutely no point in this thread or debating you about your ideas/claims.

I can't see how it's the reason d'etre of JREF because it's a skeptics forum and skeptics ask for evidence. If you aren't going to even attempt to produce any then your whole argument is moot (certainly from my point of view) and I shan't bother posting in it again. Others can waste their time wearing out the letters on their keyboards.

 

[DGM]

If one is able to do a splendid near real-time voice morphing job in 1999, than it is easy to infer that 2.5 years later this was possible real time given the enormous progress made in computing power in these years.

But here is the proof anyway:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.32.4102

Real-time voice morphing anno 2000.

The plot thickens.

Do you read (and understand) the links you post? This is to make something sound like a PRE-RECORDED track. Did the perps record every possible response from all of the passengers?

 

[9/11-investigator]

And is that how al Qaeda extracted the martyrdom tapes from the hijackers, or how al Jazeera extracts videos from al Qaeda?

I see that the topic of water boarding is quietly dropped and attention is shifted towards tapes and videos of bad quality that anybody can produce. Ah wait, real time faking of bin Laden videos was not yet possible in 2001.

http://www.daanspeak.com/AlQaeda01Eng.html
About fake bin Laden videos and Al Qaeda.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=2623
FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

BTW: Asking for a condemnation of water boarding practices is probably too much to ask from my opponents?