Questions for 9/11 Truthers

[ref]

I dunno... seems to me if you're going to plant evidence then you make sure it looks how people 'expect' it to look. If the general expectation is that it should be singed and torn then that is what you plant there.

But as has been mentioned previously, why is it assumed that this bandana was around someone's head at the time of impact? Any number of scenarios could be possible that would have ended with the bandana being placed or thrown somewhere within the plane which lead to it being found in near pristine (if that is the case) condition.

It's not much to hang a conspiracy on, much less your hat.

Glad there is some actual discussion on this. If you look at the picture of the bandana. It has remained in a folded condition. I don't know how to express this properly in english. In other words. It had not even opened up in the enormous turbulance. Not to mention the pristine condition.

About the lack of spots. if you hit the ground at 500mph head straight, it takes approximately 0,2 seconds for the entire plane to hit the ground. You have 2 options. 1) bury everything inside the plane deep into the ground. 2) have an explosion to spread a little of the remains elsewhere. Remember, since the bandana was inside the plane it was trapped to go deep, abcent some strange force that would toss it far away from an explosion within 0,1 seconds. We would see burial dirt or we would see explotional damage.

I'm not building the whole conpiracy around this. I just say that this is false planted evidence.

 

[PerryLogan]

Which (not to get off-topic) leads us to two more questions for the 9/11 Truth Movement:

Why do Truthers think the bad guys like to leave clues--or don't know how to plant evidence?
Why is it always clues and evidence that only conspiracy guys can see?

Conspiracy folks really do think differently from you and me. They honest-to-God believe:
1) the perps always leave tons of evidence
2) this evidence is terribly obvious...and yet
3) no one in the world but the Truthers can perceive all this evidence.

 

[Karl Johannes]

i wouldnt get too caught up on the should ofs and would ofs, it is possible it just escaped all damage, and was folded up and put in the bag and shelved and thus retained a rigid look, it does have some discoloration on it, i wouldnt call it totally unscathed and it could ahve been in the carryon luggage of one of the hijackers who didnt bother to put it on, i dont think this is a huge issue really, i just wondered if anyone had any real evidence on its origins, if you look at other evidence from flight 93 you will find papers, ids and other items that survived the destruction none of which the prosecution really hung its case so i fail to see any motive for planting it other than to give the truthers a raging clue.

 

[ref]

Which (not to get off-topic) leads us to two more questions for the 9/11 Truth Movement:

Why do Truthers think the bad guys like to leave clues--or don't know how to plant evidence?
Why is it always clues and evidence that only conspiracy guys can see?

Conspiracy folks really do think differently from you and me. They honest-to-God believe:
1) the perps always leave tons of evidence
2) this evidence is terribly obvious...and yet
3) no one in the world but the Truthers can perceive all this evidence.

Sir, what is your problem? I have given my take on this. Please feel free to explain how this piece of evidence might have escaped untouched.

About this evidence itself? What do you think is the percentage of the world's population, that has actually gone through the Moussaoui trial evidence? What percentage of the population in the world even knows there was a trial? Aside from you and me, how many people in the world focus their discussion on a single piece of evidence on flight 93? The percentage is rapidly closing zero.

Of course this one seems quite obvious, but still. Everybody makes mistakes. This wasn't exactly the main piece of evidence in the whole day of events.

 

[gumboot]

Sir, what is your problem? I have given my take on this. Please feel free to explain how this piece of evidence might have escaped untouched.

Can I ask you a question?

A taxi is driving along a freeway, when suddenly a 40ft light pole falls over and spears through the taxi's windscreen, lodging in the back seat. The hood of the taxi is unscathed.

Do you consider the condition of the hood in this scenario to be:

A) Impossible
B) Implausible
C) Improbable
D) Likely

Please give your answer with reasoning.

Regards,
-Gumboot

 

[PerryLogan]

I don't have to explain how the evidence got there. You've got to explain why someone would plant impossible evidence, use it in court, and fool everyone in the world but you. Seems unlikely to me, not to mention egotistical.

 

[Firestone]

Sir, what is your problem? I have given my take on this. Please feel free to explain how this piece of evidence might have escaped untouched.

Strange things happen during catastrophic events like a plane crash or a building collapse.

For example, a copy of the New York Times (dated June 23, 1969) was found unscathed at GZ. Conservationists say a worker on the original building site for the World Trade Center must have left it inside the structure of the buildings. Weird, but irl weird things happen.



Source

 

[uk_dave]

Actually, given the type of dodgy things which have been known to go on during construction of buildings, it's possible that newspaper was used to pack some kind of gap between two members prior to finishings.

Just kidding........

....or am I?

 

[ref]

Can I ask you a question?

A taxi is driving along a freeway, when suddenly a 40ft light pole falls over and spears through the taxi's windscreen, lodging in the back seat. The hood of the taxi is unscathed.

Do you consider the condition of the hood in this scenario to be:

A) Impossible
B) Implausible
C) Improbable
D) Likely

Please give your answer with reasoning.

Regards,
-Gumboot

You really think that episode even remotely compares to a full speed, head first plane crash? You give some silly comparisons but get away from explaining even remotely a one single hypothesis how that could have happened.

 

[ref]

Strange things happen during catastrophic events like a plane crash or a building collapse.

For example, a copy of the New York Times (dated June 23, 1969) was found unscathed at GZ. Conservationists say a worker on the original building site for the World Trade Center must have left it inside the structure of the buildings. Weird, but irl weird things happen.

View attachment 4554

I know about this. But this evidence was not welded into any structure.

 

[ref]

I don't have to explain how the evidence got there. You've got to explain why someone would plant impossible evidence, use it in court, and fool everyone in the world but you. Seems unlikely to me, not to mention egotistical.

Again. How many people even know about the existence of this evidence? Let alone given it a single thought. That court had some bigger issues than this small piece of evidence. It just reinforces the impression of a hijacker wearing bandana. And what do you know what they discussed about this in court anyway?

 

[uk_dave]

Here's an interesting article about the partial collapse of a tower block known as Ronan Point in London in the late 60's....

The chair of Newham’s Housing Committee asked Webb to conduct a survey to assess the condition of the building. He and a team of architectural students surveyed nearly half of Ronan Point’s one hundred ten apartments. Their findings revealed cracks in the central stairwell and elevator shaft, which indicated movement throughout the building. After analyzing the cracks, Sam Webb realized that his predictions about Ronan Point had been confirmed. He concluded, “In high winds it was beginning to break up.” The building “was moving on its lifting bolts and was held up by the ‘blast angles’ fitted after the public inquiry. The drypack mortar had been crushed – or was never there in the first place.”(Wearne, 2000).

Continuing concerns over the building’s structural integrity eventually led to its demolition in May of 1986. This type of building had a life expectancy of sixty years. Ronan Point was razed after just eighteen years of service. However, the building was not demolished in the traditional fashion. Webb suspected poor workmanship, and therefore insisted that Ronan Point be dismantled floor by floor so that the joints could be studied. The site was an ‘open site’ for anyone interested. It was verified that compromises in workmanship were present.

A shocked Webb commented, “I knew we were going to find bad workmanship – what surprised me was the sheer scale of it. Not a single joint was correct. Fixing straps were unattached: leveling nuts were not wound down, causing a significant loading to be transmitted via the bolts: panels were placed on bolts instead of mortar. But the biggest shock of all was the crucial H-2 load-bearing joints between floor and wall panels. Some of the joints had less than fifty percent of the mortar specified.” (Wearne, 2000).

http://www.eng.uab.edu/cee/faculty/ndelatte/case_studies_project/Ronan Point.htm

It's worth reading the whole thing because it deals with progressive collapse of a structure and the implications this case had for construction codes both here and the US

 

[ref]

More questions for you:

Flight 77 hit Pentagon at 9:37. The flight was 10 minutes late, so if on schedule, it could have hit the Pentagon at around 9:27 earliest. The second hijack was well before 9:00 and the second hit was 9:03.

Do you think the flight 77 hijackers knew they would not be intercepted/shot down in a long half an hour and just cruised to their target?

Did they knew there would be so few fighters on alert, eventhough there are more than enough of air force bases around the whole area?

Do you think they knew in advance about the radar gap and exloited it perfectly? How they knew?

Do you discredit the Able Danger program like the commission did?

Why did the seismology report initially find it clear that 10:06 was the crash time for flight 93? As did all the news reports? The doubt came much later.

 

[The Doc]

Did they knew there would be so few fighters on alert, eventhough there are more than enough of air force bases around the whole area?

Ref,

Just because a base is near the flight path doesn't indicate for a second that these bases have fighters loaded with ammunition and pilots waiting for the go signal.

I recommend reading Gravy's mention of this in his guide:
www.loosechangeguide.com

And I would also recommend:
http://www.911myths.com/html/andrews_afb.html

 

[ref]

Ref,

Just because a base is near the flight path doesn't indicate for a second that these bases have fighters loaded with ammunition and pilots waiting for the go signal.

Come on. You missed the whole point. I know that and everybody does now. But did the hijackers know before 9/11 that there would be no fighters ready to intercept? And if did, how?

 

[Firestone]

Come on. You missed the whole point. I know that and everybody does now. But did the hijackers know before 9/11 that there would be no fighters ready to intercept? And if did, how?

They knew that NEVER had a civilian airplane been shot down by the USAF over US territory.
Maybe they expected that after two or three attacks a shoot-down order would be given and executed. Still a "victory" for them, having forced the mighty USAF to shoot down a plane full with its own civilians (and maybe shot down over a heavily populated area). It was a Win-Win situation for the terrorists.

 

[PerryLogan]

Also, no one in their right mind would OK a subterfuge with a huge anomaly in the middle of it. So, even if there were valid questions about NORAD's response on 9/11, these very questions would tend to disprove a conspiracy. If you're trying to fool the whole world, you try to create a cover story which doesn't raise issues or leave obvious clues, such as questions about NORAD's response. The plan would never have gotten off the drawing board.

 

[ref]

Also, no one in their right mind would OK a subterfuge with a huge anomaly in the middle of it. So, even if there were valid questions about NORAD's response on 9/11, these very questions would tend to disprove a conspiracy. If you're trying to fool the whole world, you try to create a cover story which doesn't raise issues or leave obvious clues, such as questions about NORAD's response. The plan would never have gotten off the drawing board.

Not questioning the NORAD response this time. That's another story. But the hijackers' awareness of the poor response? It took flight 11 33 minutes from hijack to hit. It took flight 77 33 minutes to hit the Pentagon after the second hit. You think they just gambled with the intercept, or knew beforehand there would be such a poor response? It would have been enough for them to have the planes forced down?


What's your take on the Able Danger or the succesfully exploited radar gaps?

 

[uk_dave]

Come on. You missed the whole point. I know that and everybody does now. But did the hijackers know before 9/11 that there would be no fighters ready to intercept? And if did, how?

How do you know that the hijackers knew that there would not be any fighters ready to intercept them?

Why must it always be assumed that what happened on 9/11 went precisely to plan (with the exception of shanksville, of course) or that the hijackers even expected to succeed as far as they did?

If the US military had immediately intercepted those hijacked planes it would still have been a victory of sorts for the terrorists : forcing the US govt to shoot down civillian aircraft (possibly over densely populated areas) and killing all on board? Wow, we'll have some of that!

But, without too much specialist knowledge of the US air defence system they could depend on confusion, uncertainty and indecision to give them enough time to succeed with at least one attack, in just the same way that they could depend on the flight crew expecting the hijack to be a normal "fly me to cuba...not enough fuel? oh ok just land it then" type scenario where the demands of the hijackers would be met until the plane was safe on the ground and no one was going to be a hero and cause the terrorists to detonate the bombs they claimed to have on board.

Maybe there were more attacks planned who knows? (well AQ presumeably)

If, say there were 12 attacks planned, on major cities throughout the US, or even in other western countries, and those other 8 attacks didn't come off because of the events which were unfolding over new york and washington and the grounding of all aircraft, or just heightened security checking, then, depending on your view as to whether shanksville was still a success for the terrorists, AQ ONLY managed a 30%-40% success rate on the day.

Would that make '911 was an inside job' less likely to you?

 

[28th Kingdom]

Hey Guys,

I mean...didn't I step up to the challenge or what? Can I at least get a little respect for answering these questions? This post deserves a nomination:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2182434#post2182434

Why? Because I did something you said no other PETist would even try to attempt.