Questions for 9/11 Truthers

[MortFurd]

You are doing what so many of the proponents of the official story do. You are misrepresenting to those German people what 9/11 skeptics believe. I, for one, do not believe the "US government planned and carried out the attacks on September11, 2001." That is called setting up a straw man argument and then knocking it down.

No, genius, I'm not doing what so many of you in the Twoof movement do. You claimed that only Americans accepted the official story of the September 11, 2001 attacks. I provided evidence that people outside the US also accept the official story, and that people outside the US think the CTs are nuts.

Geez. What is it with CTs, poor reading comprehension, and lousy short term memory?

 

[Horatius]

The plan was that the passengers should see the knives, but not the guns. But plans don't always work out perfectly. Betty Ong and Tom Burnett saw the guns.

But if they used these guns to shoot the pilots, as you've suggested, wouldn't everybody on the planes have heard the shots? Planes aren't that large, and soundproof. Why didn't anyone report these shots? Killing the pilots was the first order of business, and so these shots should have happened before any of the phone calls, right?

What were they doing there? Who says any of the hijackers were Arabs? The people on the planes reported the hijackers to be "Middle Eastern looking," which they undoubtedly were. The word "Arab" was never used on any phone call.

So who were they then? Who else in recent history have used suicide attacks as their primary means of attack?

And we don't know exactly who was on each plane. Identities can be stolen. It happens every day. The identities of various Arab patsies were assumed by the people who boarded the planes and hijacked them.

Except you can't steal DNA. We do have DNA evidence for almost everybody on at least two of the flights.

That's why some of the "hijackers" turned up alive and well after 9/11. We don't know who the actual hijackers were. We would know if we could view the surveillance video of the various boarding gates. But that footage mysteriously disappeared, or more mysteriously, was never made. That's another thing that ought to bother supporters of the official story.

And these points have been discussed by other posters. You make a big point that you don't believe the mainstream CT, but here, you're repeating claims that they have all made at some point.

Again, I'd ask, who do you believe was responsible for 9/11, and how did you figure that out, since the external evidence seems to be indistinguishable from the official story?

 

[aggle-rithm]

In the Dawson's Field hijackings (September 6, 1970) four jet aircraft bound for New York City were hijacked by members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Dangit, how is A-frame supposed to maintain his cool fantasies if you keep throwing facts at him?!?

 

[A-Train]

OK. I admit I didn't know about the Dawson Field hijackings. Thank you for informing me. I still maintain the 9/11 operation was far too sophisticated to have been carried out by a group of Gulf Arabs like al-Qaeda. And while we're on the subject of means, how about motive? How has the Arab world benefitted from 9/11? It seems to have been unmitigated disaster for them. We know that al-Qaeda is dedicated to expelling Western invaders from Muslim lands. How is that promoted by a spectacular attack inside the US that inflames the population against all things Arab and Muslim? Was this just a gigantic miscalculation by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda? They were smart enough to pull this off, but so stupid as to not foresee what a complete disaster it would be for their cause?

Meanwhile, the fallout from 9/11 has been a boon for the state of Israel, and especially its Likud elite who dream of an empire extending to the Euphrates. But don't take my word for it. Listen to what Benjamin Netanyahu said:

On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attacks would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)"

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip> I still maintain the 9/11 operation was far too sophisticated to have been carried out by a group of Gulf Arabs like al-Qaeda. <snip>

At least three times now. Any time you want to explain and/or substantiate this claim would be great. As it is, you're just starting to look like a racist.

 

[HyJinX]

OK. I admit I didn't know about the Dawson Field hijackings. Thank you for informing me. I still maintain the 9/11 operation was far too sophisticated to have been carried out by a group of Gulf Arabs like al-Qaeda. And while we're on the subject of means, how about motive? How has the Arab world benefitted from 9/11? It seems to have been unmitigated disaster for them. We know that al-Qaeda is dedicated to expelling Western invaders from Muslim lands. How is that promoted by a spectacular attack inside the US that inflames the population against all things Arab and Muslim? Was this just a gigantic miscalculation by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda? They were smart enough to pull this off, but so stupid as to not foresee what a complete disaster it would be for their cause?

Meanwhile, the fallout from 9/11 has been a boon for the state of Israel, and especially its Likud elite who dream of an empire extending to the Euphrates. But don't take my word for it. Listen to what Benjamin Netanyahu said:

Motive was revenge, pride and retaliation for deaths and invasions due to US foreign policy.

Benefit to the attacks is a massive increase of Islam extremism...and it's working. Their "armies" have increased in size on an overwhelming scale. They wanted to pick a fight because the world has taken advantage of them and their land. We invade on their holy ground and they wanted to prove that they could reach us on our soil this time. They made quite an impact didn't they? Regardless of what they knew would come next...they knew by us attacking them would only increase the hatred for foreign policy makers (mainly the US)...and it has.

No miscalculations on OBL part in any way. He wanted a holy war. He wanted our side to hate them and vice-versa. He wanted us to clash at every level because he believes that his God is righteous and would protect his people. He has faith on his side...unwavering faith. To him, that's all he needs to win.

No failure. 9/11 was exactly what he wanted and more.

 

[WildCat]

They were smart enough to pull this off, but so stupid as to not foresee what a complete disaster it would be for their cause?

To a Islamic fanatic, what happens in this world is completely immaterial. They're fighting for a good "life" in the next world, and believe that what they're doing ensures that.

They're also emboldened by their victory over the Soviets in Afghanistan.

And it's bewildering that you think the 9/11 events were too complicated for Arabs to pull off. Do you think they're all mentally deficient, or not as smart as white people or something? It wasn't a complicated plot, in fact it was quite simple.

 

[stateofgrace]

OK. I admit I didn't know about the Dawson Field hijackings. Thank you for informing me. I still maintain the 9/11 operation was far too sophisticated to have been carried out by a group of Gulf Arabs like al-Qaeda. And while we're on the subject of means, how about motive? How has the Arab world benefitted from 9/11? It seems to have been unmitigated disaster for them. We know that al-Qaeda is dedicated to expelling Western invaders from Muslim lands. How is that promoted by a spectacular attack inside the US that inflames the population against all things Arab and Muslim? Was this just a gigantic miscalculation by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda? They were smart enough to pull this off, but so stupid as to not foresee what a complete disaster it would be for their cause?

Meanwhile, the fallout from 9/11 has been a boon for the state of Israel, and especially its Likud elite who dream of an empire extending to the Euphrates. But don't take my word for it. Listen to what Benjamin Netanyahu said:

As well as what other members have already said to you.

The terrorist attack of September 11 could cost New York up to $95bn (£60bn),

The 'war on terror' is costing Americans approximately $7 billion US every month. According to a new Congressional report, the bill could exceed half a trillion dollars by 2010.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,786326,00.html
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...ngresserport_cost_20051007/20051007?hub=World

A gigantic miscalculation and unmitigated disaster by OBL and Al Qeada?

Or maybe a gigantic success ?

Take your pick.

 

[A-Train]

Wait a minute.

Are you proposing that the hijackers all had guns, but that nobody ever saw them except for two people, between four aircraft?

And I'm guessing nobody at all heard them fire, right?

What, exactly, is the purpose of a firearm that nobody sees, and doesn't get used? I fail to see how this would give them any leverage at all.

No. They were used, to dispatch the pilots in an efficient manner. Only a few people saw them because the intention was to conceal them from the passengers, so the passengers would report knives, not guns, on their phone calls-- all in keeping with the image of a primitive Arab attack. They didn't hear them because they were equipped with silencers. Actually it, since there only needed to be one gun per plane.

Identities can be stolen, but it would be rather difficult for a Scotsman to steal the identity of a "Middle Eastern looking" man, and be referred to as such.

You can't have it both ways. If you're relying on two phone calls to "prove" that there were guns, you can't throw out over a dozen phone calls saying they "looked Middle Eastern." Either phone witnesses are credible or they aren't. (Personally, I say they're not completely credible without confirmation. However, we have that... see below...)

Who said anything about Scotsmen? The phone witnesses are credible, and the hijackers did look Middle Eastern. Your mind works just like the typical American's. To you, "Middle Eastern" means Arab-Muslim. Go out and look at a map. Not all countries in the Middle East are Muslim. Many of the people living in a non-Muslim Middle Eastern country look just like Arabs, with dark skin and all.

You might want to read this thread. Not only there is some video from the airports, but there is witness testimony.

Went to the thread and couldn't find anything without looking too hard. Hope it isn't the same Atta footage from the Portland airport? Or the bogus footage from Dulles submitted by some law firm? Hang it up on this issue, boys, you will never find surveillance video from any of the four boarding gates. The government doesn't even have it. It was never made. That's called an improbable coincidence.

In order for your story to be true, not only you have to produce evidence that you haven't shown us yet, but you have to somehow explain away all of this other evidence that conflicts with your story.

How do you know their identities were stolen? What proof do you have? Let's hear it.

How do you know their identities were not stolen? Where is your proof. You are the one indicting specific people. If you were a prosecutor in a court of law, the burden of proof would be on you, not the accused.

 

[uk_dave]

No. They were used, to dispatch the pilots in an efficient manner. Only a few people saw them because the intention was to conceal them from the passengers, so the passengers would report knives, not guns, on their phone calls-- all in keeping with the image of a primitive Arab attack. They didn't hear them because they were equipped with silencers. Actually it, since there only needed to be one gun per plane.

Total fantasy

 

[MortFurd]

Long history of Arab terrorists hijacking planes? Is it possible some of them were false-flags as well?

Anyway, 9/11 wasn't just some hijackings. They successfully entered the US and penetrated airport and airline security. They then simultaneously hijacked four airplanes, overcoming the crews of each so efficiently that not one of the eight pilots was able to broadcast a distress signal of any kind-- and they did this supposedly with only knives, which they somehow smuggled on board. Then they piloted the three of the planes with pinpoint accuracy to their targets, evading American air defense in the process......

C'mon. I'm no expert on previous Arab hijackings. But this was a whole world apart.

Before September 11, 2001, I used to carry a pocket knife and various screwdrivers in my pockets when flying national and international flights. No trouble about "smuggling." The security changes after the attacks made it difficult to carry knives onto airplanes. People still manage it. I don't, because my knives are valuable enough to me that I won't take a chance on having them confiscated. They get put in the checked baggage, where I can retrieve them on arrival.

Did you ever fly before September 11, 2001?

"Evading American air defense" is more BS. There were no standing orders for the Air Force to track shoot down civilian flights.

You "truthers" are so ignorant it is just truly incredible.

 

[uk_dave]

Hang on a minute, maybe I'm missing something in A-Trains fantasy, but he does seem to be suggesting that there WERE HIJACKERS on the flights.

And presumeably these hijackers were willing to sacrifice their own lives on 9/11.

But his problem is that he doesn't think these suicide terrorists were arabs.

Correct?

 

[Horatius]

No. They were used, to dispatch the pilots in an efficient manner. Only a few people saw them because the intention was to conceal them from the passengers, so the passengers would report knives, not guns, on their phone calls-- all in keeping with the image of a primitive Arab attack. They didn't hear them because they were equipped with silencers. Actually it, since there only needed to be one gun per plane.

Okay, so now you're making specific suggestions about these weapons, but you have yet to show us any evidence for any of it. You have at most one phone call that suggests guns. Where is the evidence for silenced guns? Is it anything more than your supposition?

This is why we keep asking for evidence and proof. Without it, any objecton we make can be dismissd by throwing out another supposition about how things could have happened. But we don't care about "could have happened", we want to know, as best as we are able, what did happen. And we can only get there by considering the best evidence we have at hand.

Since you're talking about silenced guns being used on all of the planes, you must have some evidence we lack. Or you're just playing the "What If?" game. "What If?" is fun, but it doesn't really lead us anywhere useful.

So tell us, where did you learn this? What do you know that we don't? If you've got some real evidence, we'd love to see it.

Because despite what a lot of CTists assert, we skeptics really do care about what's true and what's not. If you can show us we're wrong, we'll admit it. And I dare say, we'd be a lot more useful allies than any of the CTists who are out there already.

 

[A-Train]

Identities can be stolen, but it would be rather difficult for a Scotsman to steal the identity of a "Middle Eastern looking" man, and be referred to as such.

I agree it would be difficult for a Scotman. But how about a dark skinned Israeli soldier, like this one:

If this man were hijacking your plane, dressed and acting like an Arab, including his red headband, would you know he was an Israeli, not an Arab?

 

[Horatius]

Hang on a minute, maybe I'm missing something in A-Trains fantasy, but he does seem to be suggesting that there WERE HIJACKERS on the flights.

And presumeably these hijackers were willing to sacrifice their own lives on 9/11.

But his problem is that he doesn't think these suicide terrorists were arabs.

Correct?

Essentially correct. He's postulating an attack that, to all outward appearances would be consistent with the Official Story, but which was actually engineered by someone other than AQ.

We still haven't figured out who that was, exactly, or why, or how he knows all this, though.

 

[Firestone]

Essentially correct. He's postulating an attack that, to all outward appearances would be consistent with the Official Story, but which was actually engineered by someone other than AQ.

We still haven't figured out who that was, exactly, or why, or how he knows all this, though.

I beg to disagree.
He has made it quite clear who he thinks it was, but since he threatened to sue me when I stated it, I won't repeat it.

 

[Horatius]

I agree it would be difficult for a Scotman. But how about a dark skinned Israeli soldier, like this one:

If this man were hijacking your plane, dressed and acting like an Arab, including his red headband, would you know he was an Israeli, not an Arab?

And how often have Israelis engaged in suicide attacks lately?

 

[Horatius]

I beg to disagree.
He has made it quite clear who he thinks it was, but since he threatened to sue me when I stated it, I won't repeat it.

I was trying to be charitable, but his last post makes that hard!

 

[Calcas]

...all in keeping with the image of a primitive Arab attack.

Damn. So that's what it's all about...

 

[The Silver Shadow]

No. They were used, to dispatch the pilots in an efficient manner. Only a few people saw them because the intention was to conceal them from the passengers, so the passengers would report knives, not guns, on their phone calls-- all in keeping with the image of a primitive Arab attack. They didn't hear them because they were equipped with silencers. Actually it, since there only needed to be one gun per plane.

How do you get a gun onto a plane at the time? If you had anything even remotely resembling a gun, security would ask to see it. At the time, they only believed that guns were the only method of hijacking a plane.