Questions for 9/11 Truthers

[twinstead]

Good for you, Mike. I detect a whiff of doubt that three out of the four black boxes were damaged beyond repair. If so, you deserve your title of "critical thinker."

The black boxes are specifically designed to survive just about anything. The Pentagon crash doesn't seem all that out of the ordinary to have so damaged the black boxes. And yet we're told the only CVR to have survived is one that tells us a heartwarming story of American heroes fighting back against the Arabs, one of whom yells "Allah o Akbar!"

Just because it doesn't fit your theory is no reason to automatically suspect it. Now just how much critical thinking is that?

 

[aggle-rithm]

The black boxes are specifically designed to survive just about anything.

Common misconception. They are designed to be very tough, but it's impossible to know exactly what forces it will be subjected to in a crash. It's also assumed that the crash will be an accident, not a purposeful high-speed collision with a building.

The truth is, black boxes are often too damaged to be useful in an investigation.

 

[JimBenArm]

Good for you, Mike. I detect a whiff of doubt that three out of the four black boxes were damaged beyond repair. If so, you deserve your title of "critical thinker."

The black boxes are specifically designed to survive just about anything. The Pentagon crash doesn't seem all that out of the ordinary to have so damaged the black boxes. And yet we're told the only CVR to have survived is one that tells us a heartwarming story of American heroes fighting back against the Arabs, one of whom yells "Allah o Akbar!"

The Pentagon crash not out of the ordinary? Do jets crash into reinforced concrete buildings normally?

Let me sum this up for you. You've got two jets that crash into two of the tallest buildings in the world, which then burn and fall down on top of the black boxes. You have a third one which crashes into a building made of reinforced concrete, which also burns and has part of it collapse on top of it. A fourth one crashes in an open field.

Yet you find it suspicious that the only CVR that is recovered that works is the one from the open field? Correct?

 

[A-Train]

Apart from the fact that a plane that was under the complete control of highly trained professionals armed with guns crashed.

So why did it crash?

The conspirators made the decision to crash the plane into the ground long before any passenger revolt. They probably did so because of the long delay the plane took on the ground at EWR. To fly it all the way back to Manhattan or Washington DC would have made the NORAD stand-down too obvious, even for the most credulous.

Tom Burnett mentions in one of his later calls, at about 9:45, that the hijackers were talking about crashing the plane into the ground. Why would they have been saying that so long before the revolt? Perhaps to intimidate the passengers, or perhaps because the decision to crash had already been made.

 

[twinstead]

The conspirators made the decision to crash the plane into the ground long before any passenger revolt. They probably did so because of the long delay the plane took on the ground at EWR. To fly it all the way back to Manhattan or Washington DC would have made the NORAD stand-down too obvious, even for the most credulous.

Tom Burnett mentions in one of his later calls, at about 9:45, that the hijackers were talking about crashing the plane into the ground. Why would they have been saying that so long before the revolt? Perhaps to intimidate the passengers, or perhaps because the decision to crash had already been made.

LOL because all you have is conjecture, you can morph your story to fit any anomaly or inconsistency.

Cool. That means in your mind you can never loose a debate. Kind of like a woo woo circuit breaker...

 

[stateofgrace]

The conspirators made the decision to crash the plane into the ground long before any passenger revolt. They probably did so because of the long delay the plane took on the ground at EWR. To fly it all the way back to Manhattan or Washington DC would have made the NORAD stand-down too obvious, even for the most credulous.

Tom Burnett mentions in one of his later calls, at about 9:45, that the hijackers were talking about crashing the plane into the ground. Why would they have been saying that so long before the revolt? Perhaps to intimidate the passengers, or perhaps because the decision to crash had already been made.

Really?

Let me get this straight. A highly trained professional Israeli suicide armed with guns board a flight, with the help of airport security of course.
The plane takes off 40 minutes late and they hijack it, then crash it into the ground after they realise that if they don't it will give the game away that NORAD stood down, did I miss anything?

Wait a minute; they knew the plane was late, so why hijack it in the first place?
Why did this highly trained Israeli suicide squad not simply abort the mission and just ride it out, walk of at the other end where nobody would have been any wiser?

 

[HyJinX]

Really?

Let me get this straight. A highly trained professional Israeli suicide armed with guns board a flight, with the help of airport security of course.
The plane takes off 40 minutes late and they hijack it, then crash it into the ground after they realise that if they don't it will give the game away that NORAD stood down, did I miss anything?

Wait a minute; they knew the plane was late, so why hijack it in the first place?
Why did this highly trained Israeli suicide squad not simply abort the mission and just ride it out, walk of at the other end where nobody would have been any wiser?

SOG...it's simple. 1) It's more fun to crash planes than not to crash planes. Everybody knows this. 2) For the children of Israel. They need heros.

 

[Firestone]

Really?

Let me get this straight. A highly trained professional Israeli suicide armed with guns board a flight, with the help of airport security of course.
The plane takes off 40 minutes late and they hijack it, then crash it into the ground after they realise that if they don't it will give the game away that NORAD stood down, did I miss anything?

Wait a minute; they knew the plane was late, so why hijack it in the first place?
Why did this highly trained Israeli suicide squad not simply abort the mission and just ride it out, walk of at the other end where nobody would have been any wiser?

This is a real KO-argument.

At least, it would be if logic was required.

Now, just enjoy how A-Train will talk himself out of this ...

 

[A-Train]

Wait a minute; they knew the plane was late, so why hijack it in the first place?
Why did this highly trained Israeli suicide squad not simply abort the mission and just ride it out, walk of at the other end where nobody would have been any wiser?

The purpose of the operation was to hijack planes and frame Arabs as fanatical, vicious culprits. They didn't need to necessarily crash all the planes into buildings to do this. They accomplished this quite well on UAL93. They performed the mock-Arab stage show on the plane, and the story of "Arab" fanatics stabbing women while wearing their red headbands, etc. was successfully relayed via the passengers' phone calls to an enraged America. All per the original plan. And they got the stirring story of American heroes to boot.

One more thing, though I hate to bring this up. You, like several others, are assuming this was a suicide mission. It probably was; but we should consider the possibility that it was not.

 

[twinstead]

T
One more thing, though I hate to bring this up. You, like several others, are assuming this was a suicide mission. It probably was; but we should consider the possibility that it was not.

We should also consider the possibility that you are totally wrong. Deal?

 

[Horatius]

One more thing, though I hate to bring this up. You, like several others, are assuming this was a suicide mission. It probably was; but we should consider the possibility that it was not.

Okay, this is just stupid. How could it be anything but a suicide mission?

And please note, it's been demonstrated that 757/767s cannot be flown "by remote".

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think we should also consider the possibility that it was a false flag operation masterminded by Alex Jones.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Okay, this is just stupid. How could it be anything but a suicide mission?

It's well known that, if you jump up in the air right before the plane hits...

 

[DavidJames]

I must give A-Train credit. He's concocted a fantasy CT that cannot be proven wrong. I don't know whether he's smarter then the other tin hatters or he's the first bit of evidence that the CT gene has mutated, adapted, if you will, to survive longer against the forces of logic and reason.

Like LIHOPers, his CT allows for all the physical evidence. But like MIHOPers, it allows for active blame within the government (U.S. or Israel).

Of course, the CT gene has some remaining adaptation as it still does not allow the CTist the ability to actually prove their CT.

I feel like I'm witnessing evolution right before my very eyes.

 

[twinstead]

I must give A-Train credit. He's concocted a fantasy CT that cannot be proven wrong.

What would be interesting if A-Train ever found himself before a jury in a trial accused of an awful crime he did not commit, and the prosecutor used the same techniques.

All the prosecutor has to do is dream stuff up to counter every alibi A-Train has, and every bit of evidence A-Train didn't commit the crime, no matter how ludicrous the prosecutor's conjecture was.

All the while the judge took the prosecutor's word no questions asked, looking down his glasses at A-Train and saying "Well...?".

 

[A-Train]

And even if you could make a case that AQ couldn't do it, why do you then assume it was Israel? Why not Canada, or Britain, or France, or New Zealand? Those Kiwi bastards have been plotting against us for years!

Now we're getting somewhere. The attacks were clearly carried out with the support of a state apparatus, in my opinion. It's fun to tease our Kiwi friends, but before implicating them, we have to ask ourselves some questions:

Does New Zealand have a history of committing terrorist acts while disguised as Arabs, so as to frame Arabs?

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

Is there a precedent of New Zealand intentionally killing large numbers of Americans, then suffering no repercussions as the crime is covered up by the US government and mostly ignored by the media?

http://www.ussliberty.com

Would a Kiwi soldier be able to creditably pass as an Arab?

Does New Zealand have a motive to induce America into war in the Middle East against Arab and Muslim nations?

And, last but not least, was the passenger in seat 9B named by Betty Ong on FL11 as one of the hijackers a highly trained commando specializing in aircraft takeover for the New Zealand military?

 

[Horatius]

(oops)

 

[Firestone]

And, last but not least, was the passenger in seat 9B named by Betty Ong on FL11 as one of the hijackers a highly trained commando specializing in aircraft takeover for the New Zealand military?

He was an Israeli and he was murdered.
Very suspect indeed.

What is outrageous is that other despicable Truthers claim Israeli involvement because there weren't enough Israeli deaths in the airplanes/WTC-towers (according to them).

One more Truther-argument that goes both ways.

And why don't you react on this?

It isn't making sense because you're oversimplifying my argument and jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. My original contention was that the plot was far more sophisticated than anything a Gulf Arab group like al-Qaeda is capable of. One piece of evidence in favor of that is that the hijackers had guns, pointing to a larger conspiracy with connections in the airport security apparatus. That should have have lead to an extensive investigation of ICTS (International Consultants for Targeted Security), a foreign firm that provided security services for all three airports involved, and is the owner of the Huntleigh firm that controlled security at Logan.

May I remind you that, according to the 9/11 Commission report, security was handled by:

In Boston:
Flight AA11: Globe Security
Flight UA175: Huntleigh USA

In Washington:
Flight AA77: Argenbright Security

In Newark:
Flight UA93: Argenbright Security

Why do you "forget" this?

You are essentially saying that because there were guns on flight AA11 and UA93 (according to your claim), the company handling the security for flight UA175 should be extensively investigated!

 

[beachnut]

The conspirators made the decision to crash the plane into the ground long before any passenger revolt. They probably did so because of the long delay the plane took on the ground at EWR. To fly it all the way back to Manhattan or Washington DC would have made the NORAD stand-down too obvious, even for the most credulous.

Tom Burnett mentions in one of his later calls, at about 9:45, that the hijackers were talking about crashing the plane into the ground. Why would they have been saying that so long before the revolt? Perhaps to intimidate the passengers, or perhaps because the decision to crash had already been made.

This is not ever an good CT now. Your story at least has some junk to it. Keep posting your fiction. Each time you add an element the real guys who did it become easier to find; and this is why your story never happened.

Examples of secret CT have been quickly uncovered, but people like you are insane and make up stories without thinking.

Give us your best story in book form and see if it floats as fiction. You could make money. But so far your story is not very good; your CT guys would all be caught.

The security guys would be caught first. Why are you lacking facts? Are you still speading the jews did it, or was that someone else?

 

[Horatius]

Now we're getting somewhere. The attacks were clearly carried out with the support of a state apparatus, in my opinion. It's fun to tease our Kiwi friends, but before implicating them, we have to ask ourselves some questions:

1) Does New Zealand have a history of committing terrorist acts while disguised as Arabs, so as to frame Arabs?

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

2) Is there a precedent of New Zealand intentionally killing large numbers of Americans, then suffering no repercussions as the crime is covered up by the US government and mostly ignored by the media?

http://www.ussliberty.com

3) Would a Kiwi soldier be able to creditably pass as an Arab?

4) Does New Zealand have a motive to induce America into war in the Middle East against Arab and Muslim nations?

5) And, last but not least, was the passenger in seat 9B named by Betty Ong on FL11 as one of the hijackers a highly trained commando specializing in aircraft takeover for the New Zealand military?

I've Killtowned^tm your list of questions for ease of reference.

1) and 2) No public history, which just shows how good they are at pulling it off. Meanwhile, the Israelis seem to bugger it up all the time, and get caught.

3) Have you ever seen Eddie Murphy's "White Like Me"? It's amazing what you can do with a bit of make up. You also have to consider the fact that NZ may also have a few Arab immigrants, hidden amongst the sheep. Somewhere. Just draft a few of them, since they're going to be killed anyways.

4) Well, they have been opposed to US possesion and/or use of Nuclear Weapons for decades. Perhaps it's all part of a long-term plan to drain the US budget so much, that they decommision their nuclear forces to save money.

5) Well, he would have had to be, wouldn't he? Thanks for agreeing with me!

And I'm not just slagging off on the NZer's to distract attention from Canadian involvement! No way!



Oh, hell, how'd that get there?!?