Kevin Ryan: "Do we need another 9/11 conspiracy theory?"

[Oystein]

Over at 911Blogger, Kevin Ryan wrote a lengthy essay a few days ago:

Do we need another 9/11 conspiracy theory?


I found a very true paragraph:

Today, we don’t have an alternative to the official conspiracy that spells out how the events of 9/11 are explained as a result of a conspiracy among insiders. Yet, at the same time, we know it is impossible that those within the popular version of al Qaeda could have shut down the U.S. air defenses for two hours on 9/11, or destroyed the WTC buildings.

The hilighted part bears repeating over and over again, after almost 11 years.

But the two following sentences are also very compelling - if Kevin read them a few times and really thought hard about these issues, he might get a clue that perhaps U.S. air defenses really weren't shut down for two hours, and that perhaps the WTC buildings really weren't destroyed by anything else than plane crashes and fires.

In the remainder of the article, he faithfull lists many of the things that his dream alternative theory would have to account for, including many hints at persons, groups and organizations that must be in on it somehow, from the President down to various government agencies and even including private parties with business interests. Yes, what a Grand Conspiracy this would have to be, that none of these fools have been able to even spell out all these years!


Anyway, Waterboy is working hard to establish himself as the top political/systems analyst of Da Moofment - ain't that cute?

 

[JoeMorgue]

An "Official Conspiracy Theory"

Jesus non-existant tapdancing Christ.

 

[Edx]

But the two following sentences are also very compelling - if Kevin read them a few times and really thought hard about these issues, he might get a clue that perhaps U.S. air defenses really weren't shut down for two hours, and that perhaps the WTC buildings really weren't destroyed by anything else than plane crashes and fires.

He's far too deep down the rabbit hole, even if he realises he has been wrong for 10 years he cant ever admit it.

 

[DGM]

Never mind.

 

[BStrong]

An "Official Conspiracy Theory"

Jesus non-existant tapdancing Christ.

How about:

Jesus H. Christ on a crutch shootin' a slingshot.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

In my mail, I've found a spam about a new Kevin Ryan's article,
From renovation to revolution: Was the Pentagon attacked from within?

I haven't read the whole stuff, just several paragraphs.

What I've noticed:

- No rockets or military planes seem to be suspected by Kevin Ryan.

- There was a renovation of Pentagon in nineties, with the aim to improve the resistance of the building to an explosive impact, with additional actions taken to reduce the possibility of fire damage.

- The same renovation was treacherously employed for supersecret planting of explosives in Pentagon, with the aim to destroy the building the protection and resistance of which was just improved (see above). I stay confused

Anyway, these people were guilty: "Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and others like Raytheon’s director John Deutch and its advisor Richard Armitage. Others who were involved with the project gained from the seizure of oil and gas resources, like Rumsfeld’s longtime fellow director Peter Janson and his colleagues at AMEC."

I don’t know if there is anything basically new in the article (I don’t care very much about Pentagon). There is no mention on nanothermite, just about "a low-grade military explosive", very probably cordite, because of its typical strong smell after the disaster. Apparently, this explosive with a characteristic smell was optimal for such extremely secret inside job

 

[Robrob]

- The same renovation was treacherously employed for supersecret planting of explosives in Pentagon, with the aim to destroy the building the protection and resistance of which was just improved (see above).

I too am regularly confused at the truthers' insistence the government intentionally inflicted billions of dollars of damage on its infrastructure and economy for no reason at all. What, running two jets into the WTC and another into a PA field wasn't going to give causa belli - so they needed to hammer the Pentagon as well?

Not to mention Rumsfeld was in the building at the time.

 

[ozeco41]

Over at 911Blogger, Kevin Ryan wrote a lengthy essay a few days ago:

Do we need another 9/11 conspiracy theory?


I found a very true paragraph:

Originally Posted by Kevin Ryan
Today, we don’t have an alternative to the official conspiracy that spells out how the events of 9/11 are explained as a result of a conspiracy among insiders. Yet, at the same time, we know it is impossible that those within the popular version of al Qaeda could have shut down the U.S. air defenses for two hours on 9/11, or destroyed the WTC buildings.

The hilighted part bears repeating over and over again, after almost 11 years....

Definitely worth repeating. The simple fact that no-one on the truth movement has put forward a coherent claim for any of their "big ticket" issues - and it is 10 years plus and counting as the truth movement shrivels up to little more than the herd liners.

...But the two following sentences are also very compelling - if Kevin read them a few times and really thought hard about these issues, he might get a clue that perhaps U.S. air defenses really weren't shut down for two hours, and that perhaps the WTC buildings really weren't destroyed by anything else than plane crashes and fires...

Just another confirmation of my suggestion that truthers lack the intellectual skills to explain complex scenarios.* So they stick to their list of "single issue anomalies' which they haven't a hope in hell of putting into a rationally framed setting.


* And my follow up suggestion that those lacking the necessary intellectual skills are more likely to become "truthers". I haven't had a "bite" either way on that which must be the sixth or eighth time I've posted it.

 

[Oystein]

These accusations are vile.

And also, they are full of inconsistencies. From the summary:

1. How could American Airlines Flight 77 have hit the building as it did, considering that the evidence shows the alleged hijacker pilot, Hani Hanjour, was a very poor pilot? Hani Hanjour was not flying the plane, which was remotely hijacked and controlled by the autopilot through WAAS guidance until it reached a point near the Pentagon. WAAS and its complementary system, JPALS, were capable of guiding the aircraft in the way that it was flown.

Remote contol? Really?

3. Why did the aircraft hit the least occupied, small fraction of the building that was the focus of the renovation plan and how was it that the construction in that exact spot just happened to be for the purpose of minimizing the damage from a terrorist explosion? This was done to limit the death toll, which is not what al Qaeda would have done. Efforts to reduce casualties among military personnel and leadership were taken by conspirators operating from within the Pentagon itself, including Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowtiz, and possibly other PNAC signatories who worked there. These casualty limiting efforts included the modifications to Wedge 1 and the targeting of that least occupied area.
...
5. What can explain the damage to the building and the aircraft debris, or lack thereof? The use of explosives could explain the damage done to the building, as well as the limited amount of recognizable aircraft debris at the site. It might also explain the FBI’s desire to limit photography of the aircraft parts, which would otherwise have provided evidence for explosive effects. Explosives could have been planted under cover of the renovation project in such a way as to be triggered as the aircraft approached or impacted and create an opening that absorbed the majority of the aircraft.

What a convoluted story!!

Here is how it goes:
- They reinforce the Pentagon facade to make it more resistant to terrorist impact
- Now the Wall is apparently too strong to be penetrated by a plane
- So They use explosives to penetrate the reinforced wall and let the plane in

What the...?!? Could they not simply have NOT reinforced the wall and NOT use explosives?
Does Kevin Ryan really think a plane could not break through the wall?



This man is going totally to the whacky side of life

 

[Oystein]

...The simple fact that no-one on the truth movement has put forward a coherent claim for any of their "big ticket" issues - and it is 10 years plus and counting as the truth movement shrivels up to little more than the herd liners.
Just another confirmation of my suggestion that truthers lack the intellectual skills to explain complex scenarios.* So they stick to their list of "single issue anomalies' which they haven't a hope in hell of putting into a rationally framed setting.


* And my follow up suggestion that those lacking the necessary intellectual skills are more likely to become "truthers". I haven't had a "bite" either way on that which must be the sixth or eighth time I've posted it.

Kevin Ryan is a good example for what you lament there.

He puts out a theory - but it is not coherent. It has contradicting explanations for two separate anomalies. I predict that the comments section of that latest blog post will attract the usual praise from the twoofer sheep, and no one will catch the glaring discrepancies.

Kevin constructs a very complex and large plot to answer a few questions that have been answered years ago, with simple answers:

1. How could American Airlines Flight 77 have hit the building as it did, considering that the evidence shows the alleged hijacker pilot, Hani Hanjour, was a very poor pilot? Because the Pentagon is really big, and since it is easy to hit a narrow spot like a runway at the required height, it is easy to hit a really big building. Kids can do it.
2. Why did the aircraft make a 330-degree turn just minutes before hitting the building? Because Hanjour, being a bad pilot, flew in too high and had to cook off altitude
3. Why did the aircraft hit the least occupied one-fifth of the building that was the focus of a renovation plan and how was it that the construction in that exact spot just happened to be for the purpose of minimizing the damage from a terrorist explosion? Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. Hanjour hit the building on the side that he was coming from - west.
4. Why was the company that performed the renovation work, just for that one-fifth of the building, immediately hired in a no bid contract to clean-up the damage and reconstruct that area of the building? (Note: The same company was also immediately hired to clean-up the WTC site within hours of the destruction there.) I suggest: Because those workers were aready there and had the required clearences
5. What can explain the damage to the building and the aircraft debris or lack thereof? A plane crash will do just fine
6. Why were the tapes from the surveillance videos in the area immediately confiscated by the FBI and never released? False premise. They were released. They just don't show what Kevin thinks they should show.

D'uh, that was easy! No need to invent a conspiracy with hundreds or thousands of insiders just for this Pentagon part of the attacks:
- People who equip plane for remote control
- Folks at AA
- Folks at FBI, FAA and NTSB
- Those who planted the explosives
- Those who planned and carried out the renovations
- The firms involved in renovation and clean-up
- The PNAC

 

[Miragememories]

"Over at 911Blogger, Kevin Ryan wrote a lengthy essay a few days ago:

Do we need another 9/11 conspiracy theory?

I found a very true paragraph:

The hilighted part bears repeating over and over again, after almost 11 years.

But the two following sentences are also very compelling - if Kevin read them a few times and really thought hard about these issues, he might get a clue that perhaps U.S. air defenses really weren't shut down for two hours, and that perhaps the WTC buildings really weren't destroyed by anything else than plane crashes and fires.

In the remainder of the article, he faithfull lists many of the things that his dream alternative theory would have to account for, including many hints at persons, groups and organizations that must be in on it somehow, from the President down to various government agencies and even including private parties with business interests. Yes, what a Grand Conspiracy this would have to be, that none of these fools have been able to even spell out all these years!

Anyway, Waterboy is working hard to establish himself as the top political/systems analyst of Da Moofment - ain't that cute? "

Well, I can certainly agree that you are consistent.

In spite of the volume of english words you make use of, your coarse understanding of the language is again revealed in this thread.

A conspiracy by its very nature, is shrouded in secrecy!

Unless he was a high-level 9/11 conspirator, how could Kevin Ryan know the planning details without the help of a major investigation.

Without a full 9/11 investigation, Kevin Ryan is quite correct, the Official Story will remain in place and the true story will be kept buried. Too big to permit exposure.

The goal of the 9/11 was to shock the world and finger arab terrorists as responsible. It effectively handed the Bush administration the emergency powers they needed to obtain a blank check from Congress.

Power to wage war wherever they claimed members or supporters of the 9/11 terrorist organization existed, and the authority to heavily suppress the rights and freedoms of virtually anyone.

Oh, and it made a lot of big corporations wealthier, and gave the military an opportunity to test their latest hardware advances and wage war.

What you are doing with this thread Oystein is playing it both ways. You damn Kevin Ryan as wrong in his beliefs because he cannot provide all the secret planning details behind 9/11, and when he makes educated guesses about parts of what might have happened, you mock him for lacking sufficient physical and eyewitness proof.

At least the thread's title was honest.

MM

 

[Dash80]

Kevin:

"Mama says da gobermint is da devil!"

 

[EventHorizon]

Well, I can certainly agree that you are consistent.

In spite of the volume of english words you make use of, your coarse understanding of the language is again revealed in this thread.

A conspiracy by its very nature, is shrouded in secrecy!

Unless he was a high-level 9/11 conspirator, how could Kevin Ryan know the planning details without the help of a major investigation.

Without a full 9/11 investigation, Kevin Ryan is quite correct, the Official Story will remain in place and the true story will be kept buried. Too big to permit exposure.

The goal of the 9/11 was to shock the world and finger arab terrorists as responsible. It effectively handed the Bush administration the emergency powers they needed to obtain a blank check from Congress.

Power to wage war wherever they claimed members or supporters of the 9/11 terrorist organization existed, and the authority to heavily suppress the rights and freedoms of virtually anyone.

Oh, and it made a lot of big corporations wealthier, and gave the military an opportunity to test their latest hardware advances and wage war.

What you are doing with this thread Oystein is playing it both ways. You damn Kevin Ryan as wrong in his beliefs because he cannot provide all the secret planning details behind 9/11, and when he makes educated guesses about parts of what might have happened, you mock him for lacking sufficient physical and eyewitness proof.

At least the thread's title was honest.

MM

That's right. Don't bother discussing the points that Oystein brought up. Instead espouse the beliefs of the reality that exists only in the mind of the deluded and the paranoid.

I've also taken the liberty of highlighting the other place where you went wrong in this post.

 

[dafydd]

There's a truther somewhere with a theory!!!??

 

[Miragememories]

"That's right. Don't bother discussing the points that Oystein brought up. Instead espouse the beliefs of the reality that exists only in the mind of the deluded and the paranoid.

I've also taken the liberty of highlighting the other place where you went wrong in this post."

What points?

His [Oystein's] belief, that Kevin Ryan meant the U.S. air defense was actually shut down for two hours when what Kevin obviously meant was that those defenses were so ineffective that they might as well have been shutdown?
[A classic example of where Oystein translates english too literally.]

That Kevin Ryan wasn't aware of the arguments supporting a natural collapse of WTC 1,2 & 7?

That he [Oystein] is incredulous that an operation like 9/11, to be an inside job, had to include a number of upper echelon people?

That name-calling (Waterboy and Da Moofment), is valid point making?

Moving on to his followup posts.

He apparently believes remote control of aircraft is implausible, but makes no counter-argument to substantiate his expressed incredulity.

His other points...well, none actually. Some more incredulity and a charge that Kevin Ryan is going whacky.

In his final post;

More name-calling [twoofer sheep].

He claims without proof, that Kevin Ryan's post is incoherent, claiming contradictory explanations for two separate anomalies, though what those anomalies are, and what the contradiction is, Oystein apparently doesn't feel it is necessary to explain.

And finally a return to Oystein's imagined list of the hundreds or thousands of people he feels would have to know they were participating in the 9/11 attacks..

So EventHorizon, if you feel that a lot of succinct points were made by Oystein, there is lots of good swampland out there waiting for you to buy.

MM

 

[dafydd]

What points?

His [Oystein's] belief, that Kevin Ryan meant the U.S. air defense was actually shut down for two hours when what Kevin obviously meant was that those defenses were so ineffective that they might as well have been shutdown?
[A classic example of where Oystein translates english too literally.]

That Kevin Ryan wasn't aware of the arguments supporting a natural collapse of WTC 1,2 & 7?

That he [Oystein] is incredulous that an operation like 9/11, to be an inside job, had to include a number of upper echelon people?

That name-calling (Waterboy and Da Moofment), is valid point making?

Moving on to his followup posts.

He apparently believes remote control of aircraft is implausible, but makes no counter-argument to substantiate his expressed incredulity.

His other points...well, none actually. Some more incredulity and a charge that Kevin Ryan is going whacky.

In his final post;

More name-calling [twoofer sheep].

He claims without proof, that Kevin Ryan's post is incoherent, claiming contradictory explanations for two separate anomalies, though what those anomalies are, and what the contradiction is, Oystein apparently doesn't feel it is necessary to explain.

And finally a return to Oystein's imagined list of the hundreds or thousands of people he feels would have to know they were participating in the 9/11 attacks..

So EventHorizon, if you feel that a lot of succinct points were made by Oystein, there is lots of good swampland out there waiting for you to buy.

MM

What's your theory?

 

[Miragememories]

What's your theory?

Only those responsible know the operational details.

My theory is that if we want to know what really happened on 9/11, we have to be willing to face painful answers to difficult questions.

From what I have observed, few people have the heart to seriously consider the ramifications of 9/11 being an inside job.

Too big to fail sums it up.

MM

 

[DGM]

Only those responsible know the operational details.

MM

No one has asked you for this. What was asked was, "What is your theory as to what happened on 9/11". Why can't you guys actually get this far?

 

[dafydd]

No one has asked you for this. What was asked was, "What is your theory as to what happened on 9/11". Why can't you guys actually get this far?

I have asked every truther on this forum for their full theory and never received an answer.

 

[dafydd]

My theory is that if we want to know what really happened on 9/11, we have to be willing to face painful answers to difficult questions.

I know what happened on 911. What do you think happened?